born in the wrong body ?

[blacktgirls]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

[SarahG]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

My guess is it's some kind of denial reaction, perhaps some kind of "if I try real hard, maybe I'll forget about it and pretend to be normal."

Take a look at all the people who try so hard not to transition, go into deep denial, get married, have a big family full of kids, become work alcoholics in established careers... only to wake up in their 50s and go "who the fuck am I fooling, I need to transition, like this weekend- my life is already more than half over!" The people who try to hide from the truth can only be successful for so long, some are probably better at it than others. Guess it becomes a question of how long can you hide your head in the sand? Eventually you're going to have to come up & breathe.

To use a pathological example, there are people who are told they're critically ill, like with cancer- who refuse to believe it. So they refuse treatment, go on living as if they were never told they have cancer, only to wake up one day and find their body is so fucked up they can't get out of bed. I'm assuming the late transitioners find themselves at some type of epiphany moment like that, where its "oh fuck, I was totally wrong... and now I am doing this at __ age instead of way back when! Maybe it's too late now!" Followed by the rash "I need to start FT, pre-everything on Monday!" responses that mid life transitioners are known for- it's one big panic presumably.

[NYTSJulie]

No not a choice.

[blacktgirls]

sarahG, i suppose your answer is a good point of view. but what about drag queen shows Rupaulesque which are just guys choosing to dress as woman for attention or fun . look at how Perez Hilton and some other gay men who choose to be flamboyant for attention. maybe barring circumstances out of each person's control the rest of life is just choices.

[SarahG]

sarahG, i suppose your answer is a good point of view. but what about drag queen shows Rupaulesque which are just guys choosing to dress as woman for attention or fun . look at how Perez Hilton and some other gay men who choose to be flamboyant for attention. maybe barring circumstances out of each person's control the rest of life is just choices.

I assumed you were only talking about people who feel "trapped in the wrong body."

Flamboyant gay guys are another matter entirely, no?

[rameses2]

It may also depend on the environment she was raised in. I'm Black, and I know it would be easier, in Black culture, if she was unwed, teenage mother or a drug dealing gang-banger than to be Gay or Transgendered. Her family would be angry or disappointed if she were an underage mother, but more often than not, they wouldn't throw her out in the Streets. Gang-bangers can change their ways and eventually be accepted in their communities. Even Religion would forgive a murderer before letting the LGBT members in their flocks. Maybe it was just easier to go all the way to the one Male extreme just to kept suspicions off of her until she had her mind, body, and soul all in the same space. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[yodajazz]

Identity is something that grows wtih the person. Sometimes a person does not know what they really want until they get something else that they thought they really wanted, and realizes that it does not bring them the happiness.

And on another level, everything in life is a choice. You could choose to not eat and try to starve yourself to death. You could choose to sacrifice something that would make yourself happy in order to provide for people you love.

It seems like the person you described strived for physical perfection, whether they chose to be male or female. So in some ways the behavior was consistant.

[B_Neg]

SarahG hit the nail on the head with her first response. So many trans people try so hard to repress who they are to avoid disappointing the "normal" people that surround them. Its a shame that people are so unaccepting of something that is so harmless, compared to all the other b.s. people willingly sweep under the rug every day. Either way, its only a matter of time before enough is enough, and you have to be you...

Before I get alot of nasty or ignorant replies, I understand this does reveal perhaps more about myself than I care to, and I am absolutely guilty of exactly this subject. Its a fucked up world, and nothing changes overnight...

[MacShreach]

SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

Why?


Denial

Denial denial denial.

Resist the inner feelings, don't let Mum and Dad and the school down, be a real man... A Real Man.....Work out, get into sport....Deny, deny...Get a job, get a wife, have kids......Try so very very hard....

And then one day the wire breaks and that's it. Simple choice. Suicide or transition.


Did you know that the average age of transition amongst older transitioners at least (who are the majority) is 42 + 2.5 years for every child? Why? The individual gets married young (to prove manhood) has kids young (to prove manhood) and then stays with the family till they are independent, then, these responsibilities dealt with-----WHAMMO!

Now anyone who has kids knows that it is a very simple fact that when they grow up and leave, there's a big empty space in life. Men--and women-- at this stage often change their focus, many things about their lives. And I suppose that it's then, lying awake at night, wondering what the hell went wrong, why everything seems so fucked up, that, as they say, the "bell rings."

We, us guys that is, never really know what happens, and maybe that's part of the awful confusion and the reason for some of the really divisive, appalling, hurtful theories that have been put forward about this--frequently by OTHER MEN LIKE US-- who just don't get it and instead of trying to understand in a way that might do some good, try to make the phenomenon fit into a phallocentric, male dominated world view.

The thing is, there are many phenomena represented on a board like this; there are indeed men who dress up as women for fun. There are people who effectively have a dual personality, as a man and a woman, and some of them spend all or most of their time as women. Whether or not this is a matter of choice I don't know, though I doubt it.

But one of the defining factors about transsexual women is that they have NO CHOICE. It's not a lifestyle thing, it's not a preference thing, it's not about sexuality or orientation or passability or beauty -- it's just about the gender of who they are.

I think the way that some older transwomen approach transition can and does shock people; but frequently they have been living as men, often very successful men, for decades...They are used to getting the things they want, they know how to organise, how to motivate....You think the CEO of a company is suddenly going to go all feeble and ineffectual because that person suddenly realises they've been living a lie? No way. All the skill and experience they have built up gets focussed right into their transition.

[yodajazz]

SarahG hit the nail on the head with her first response. So many trans people try so hard to repress who they are to avoid disappointing the "normal" people that surround them. ...

That's why I always viewed trans people as brave. Others look at the same people and call them selfish. While that is also true, to an extent. When this time period is history, I believe the 'brave' concept will win out.

I was also implying what you said, when I wrote about sacrificing for love. But my experience is that, when you doing things for others out of love it always comes back to you as something good. Just not in ways you realize or expect.

[MacShreach]

Before I get alot of nasty or ignorant replies,

I don't see why you would get that; pretty much on-point IMO.

[eclipsemint]

I would like to say something about this, please. I have a theory...

I have often pondered a related question affecting people with gender dysphoria. How can my brain be telling me I am female, when it is clear that I developed a male body during my development in the uterus? Wouldn't my brain be male, too?

Facts: The brain and the sex organs start to greatly develop at different times during foetal development. The sex organs in week 6, the brain in weeks 8 to 10 causing the head to grow greatly in proportion to the body. The hormones being produced by the mother, especially HCG, fluctuate greatly during the first eight weeks of pregnancy.

I propose that it is possible that sometimes nature gets it wrong, giving mismatched genitals and brain connections, just as it sometimes gets it wrong by making a baby to be born with a hole in its heart.

I am not saying that gender dysphoria is a malady, just a physical condition. I mismatch between how the brain and body are interacting with each other and the world.

A hundred years ago we did not have the medical or technical knowledge to alleviate the suffering of a person born with either a hole in its heart or gender dysphoria. But now we can.

The brain is an amazing organ. The way it works with the body is amazing. I am fascinated by the different ways that male and female brains operate.

I work in a call centre. I am well aware that being a mere male, my brain is compiled differently to a female's brain. More mathematical and spacial. Less language capability. Less connections between the left and right hemispheres. Can't multitask as well. Etc.

The two halves of the brain have different jobs. The left side deals mostly with maths, the right side with language.

This was illustrated to me at work today.

Whenever I receive a phone call at work, my right hand keys in the customer's account number on the alpha numerical keypad as they tell it to me. I wear the telephone headset over my left ear, which relays the sounds to the left side of my brain where the numbers are processed. My right hand is primarily controlled by the left hemisphere of my brain. The left side of my brain is where the mathematical processing primarily takes place. The right side - language.

The upshot of all this is that sometimes the customer tells me their account number and I think I didn't hear it clearly. My conscious brain thinks with the language biased right side of my brain, "Wait I don't think I understood that." However, I am often amazed to look at my computer screen to see that my right hand has entered the account number correctly, almost as though independently of the language side of the brain, without having to consciously understand the message I heard.

The brain is a remarkable organ and still not completely understood. Especially mine!

It is only human to categorise things so our brains can understand things more easily. But most things in life are grey area, not so clear.

My apologies if my theory upsets any apple carts...it's just a theory and I think this forum is a safe place to pose it and I invite rebuttal.

[MacShreach]

I would like to say something about this, please. I have a theory...

I have often pondered a related question affecting people with gender dysphoria. How can my brain be telling me I am female, when it is clear that I developed a male body during my development in the uterus? Wouldn't my brain be male, too?

Facts: The brain and the sex organs start to greatly develop at different times during foetal development. The sex organs in week 6, the brain in weeks 8 to 10 causing the head to grow greatly in proportion to the body. The hormones being produced by the mother, especially HCG, fluctuate greatly during the first eight weeks of pregnancy.

I propose that it is possible that sometimes nature gets it wrong, giving mismatched genitals and brain connections, just as it sometimes gets it wrong by making a baby to be born with a hole in its heart.

I am not saying that gender dysphoria is a malady, just a physical condition. I mismatch between how the brain and body are interacting with each other and the world.

A hundred years ago we did not have the medical or technical knowledge to alleviate the suffering of a person born with either a hole in its heart or gender dysphoria. But now we can.

The brain is an amazing organ. The way it works with the body is amazing. I am fascinated by the different ways that male and female brains operate.

I work in a call centre. I am well aware that being a mere male, my brain is compiled differently to a female's brain. More mathematical and spacial. Less language capability. Less connections between the left and right hemispheres. Can't multitask as well. Etc.

The two halves of the brain have different jobs. The left side deals mostly with maths, the right side with language.

This was illustrated to me at work today.

Whenever I receive a phone call at work, my right hand keys in the customer's account number on the alpha numerical keypad as they tell it to me. I wear the telephone headset over my left ear, which relays the sounds to the left side of my brain where the numbers are processed. My right hand is primarily controlled by the left hemisphere of my brain. The left side of my brain is where the mathematical processing primarily takes place. The right side - language.

The upshot of all this is that sometimes the customer tells me their account number and I think I didn't hear it clearly. My conscious brain thinks with the language biased right side of my brain, "Wait I don't think I understood that." However, I am often amazed to look at my computer screen to see that my right hand has entered the account number correctly, almost as though independently of the language side of the brain, without having to consciously understand the message I heard.

The brain is a remarkable organ and still not completely understood. Especially mine!

It is only human to categorise things so our brains can understand things more easily. But most things in life are grey area, not so clear.

My apologies if my theory upsets any apple carts...it's just a theory and I think this forum is a safe place to pose it and I invite rebuttal.

Essentially, you appear to be proposing the theory which says that transsexualism is a neurological intersexed condition--ie the brain is a mismatch for other parts of the body. It is therefore a physical condition. This viewpoint is certainly the basis of UK Govt guidelines for the treatment of transsexuals.

This theory is at odds with another, which suggests that transsexualism is a mental disorder. This viewpoint appears to hold more sway in the US and Canada.

These two diametrically opposite theories have been in conflict for a long time. It is hard to see what if any benefit this argument has had for transsexual people, though it has been very beneficial to the careers of certain individuals.

I don't know which camp the Australian position is in.

In really blunt and unsubtle terms, the first (above) and your approach, leads to the proposal that, since we can effectively, relatively safely and quite cheaply treat transsexualism with hormones and surgery, then we should do so as quickly as a confident diagnosis can be arrived at, as, transsexualism being a physical condition, this is an appropriate course of action. In over 80 percent of cases, a combination of hormonal treatment and GRS is wholly successful.

The second leads to the proposition that transsexualism should ideally be treated with psychological, psychiatric and behavioural methods, whether this is what the subject wants or not, since it is a mental disorder, and since this is the case the subject is clearly not fit to know her own mind. Some, though not all, professionals in this camp have actually attacked genital surgery or refused it on the grounds that it is inappropriate. Some professionals drag needless "psychotherapy" on for many years, in an attempt to "cure" the condition, but causing great distress and trouble for the individuals concerned. As far as I know the best that has ever even been claimed by this camp is "temporary respite" after which the condition "re-established" itself....leading to yet more psychotherapy.

This debate has been raging for many years and has been rehearsed here plenty. It is further complicated by the fact that there are a number of different phenomena which are routinely confused, sometimes quite deliberately, sometimes for good albeit misplaced reasons, and sometimes for downright bad ones.

Might I suggest that you search on posts by PeggyGee, SarahG and myself (if I may.) I think you might get some more of a handle on where you're going.

[bte]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

I think I know which girl you are referring to, because I saw the same picture. In my opinion, I think it's a denial issue. I think a few people have stated that before my comment. Perhaps they don't want to the conclusion that the feelings that they are probably having are real so they denial it by getting 6 packs and making themselves appear more masculine. I have a friend who recently realized that he is really a she, and before that she was kind of muscle built and got tattoos and whatnot. And was really a man's man, but come to find out he was really a she. She is now on the road to her transition.

[MacShreach]

everything in life is a choice.

Is your gender a choice?-- I mean you, personally. One day you said, "That's it, I've decided--I'm a guy." Was that how it went? You looked in the mirror, you made a decision to be a man, and that's what happened?

[kalina]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

I know you're not talking about me and I do have an idea who you're referring to, so I'll give you my story because I know others who also have similar stories.

I always felt I was born in the wrong body, ever since I was 4. All throughout my growing years, I was considered too small. I've heard "he looks like a girl!" more times by boys who teased me than I'd care to remember. I had dreams of being a makeup artist, but that was thwarted by my mother who wanted me to be a doctor. (Asian mothers always want their smart children to be doctors.) In college, I was a twerp at 118 pounds. I was too small and effeminate, people always told me, so few girls were interested in me. When I was 21 (I finished my first master's degree in computer science at this age), I tried to conform to society's views of how a man should look, so I went to the gym religiously and increased my intake of food and vitamins without resorting to steroids. I built up my body to a solid 155 pounds in less than a year (this is what a Type A personality can accomplish), but this just didn't feel like me, so one day I stopped the workouts and stopped eating so much and slowly went back to my smaller self. I finally realized I was pretty hot as a guy, so I dated and married the woman of my dreams (I'm an artist and I actually drew a picture of me and my wife before I met her... when I first met her it was so freaky to see the resemblance and when she saw my drawing she, too, was freaked out), got a dream job, bought a condo, cars, and everything, and everybody thought I was happy and lucky, but I didn't feel right. It just wasn't me and I realized that if I continued to try to please what society feels I should look like or be like, I'd be one very sad, sorry motherfucker who was depressed all the time and hateful. Before 2003, I basically considered myself a crossdresser, a confused part-timer who hung out with the wrong people, people who kept me stagnant, who wore too much makeup, cheesy wigs and Kmart clothes. They loved that I was draggy like them. I knew I was better than all of this and a lot of full-time girls told me I had so much untapped potential, so I worked on a better look for myself, started HRT in April 2003, toned and tanned my body, lasered what little hair I had on my face, eventually shed the wigs, and became ME 24/7 and I have no regrets.

Being diagnosed with Stage II colorectal cancer in 1998 really made me slow down and start smelling the roses instead of trying to become partner in a consulting company. Now I have a much lower pressure job that still pays nicely and I'm just happy to be me after experiencing all that. I've just completed my fifth photography course at Penn. I do a lot of documentary photography on transgender people as my main subject. It takes one to know one and be able to capture the transgender spirit effectively.

That in a nutshell is me. A more extensive story can be found on my web sites. I've come a long way and there's still a lot more road to travel. I've always felt I was born in the wrong body, but I've made commitments to the people I love and it is my responsibility to honor them. I know that someday I might not be married and I've come to accept that as a fate that all of my married-then-divorced transsexual friends have experienced. I know that I will never be alone because of the friendships I've made over the years, not fleeting relationships, but people I talk to every day who know me.

So, it is not a choice. It is something innate. Some of us, like myself at one time, thought it was a choice, but it's not. Something will always not feel right by making the wrong choice. Every transsexual has their own unique story to tell and I hope more will come forward with their stories.

[MacShreach]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

I know you're not talking about me and I do have an idea who you're referring to, so I'll give you my story because I know others who also have similar stories.

I always felt I was born in the wrong body, ever since I was 4. All throughout my growing years, I was considered too small. I've heard "he looks like a girl!" more times by boys who teased me than I'd care to remember. I had dreams of being a makeup artist, but that was thwarted by my mother who wanted me to be a doctor. (Asian mothers always want their smart children to be doctors.) In college, I was a twerp at 118 pounds. I was too small and effeminate, people always told me, so few girls were interested in me. When I was 21 (I finished my first master's degree in computer science at this age), I tried to conform to society's views of how a man should look, so I went to the gym religiously and increased my intake of food and vitamins without resorting to steroids. I built up my body to a solid 155 pounds in less than a year (this is what a Type A personality can accomplish), but this just didn't feel like me, so one day I stopped the workouts and stopped eating so much and slowly went back to my smaller self. I finally realized I was pretty hot as a guy, so I dated and married the woman of my dreams (I'm an artist and I actually drew a picture of me and my wife before I met her... when I first met her it was so freaky to see the resemblance and when she saw my drawing she, too, was freaked out), got a dream job, bought a condo, cars, and everything, and everybody thought I was happy and lucky, but I didn't feel right. It just wasn't me and I realized that if I continued to try to please what society feels I should look like or be like, I'd be one very sad, sorry motherfucker who was depressed all the time and hateful. Before 2003, I basically considered myself a crossdresser, a confused part-timer who hung out with the wrong people, people who kept me stagnant, who wore too much makeup, cheesy wigs and Kmart clothes. They loved that I was draggy like them. I knew I was better than all of this and a lot of full-time girls told me I had so much untapped potential, so I worked on a better look for myself, started HRT in April 2003, toned and tanned my body, lasered what little hair I had on my face, eventually shed the wigs, and became ME 24/7 and I have no regrets.

Being diagnosed with Stage II colorectal cancer in 1998 really made me slow down and start smelling the roses instead of trying to become partner in a consulting company. Now I have a much lower pressure job that still pays nicely and I'm just happy to be me after experiencing all that. I've just completed my fifth photography course at Penn. I do a lot of documentary photography on transgender people as my main subject. It takes one to know one and be able to capture the transgender spirit effectively.

That in a nutshell is me. A more extensive story can be found on my web sites. I've come a long way and there's still a lot more road to travel. I've always felt I was born in the wrong body, but I've made commitments to the people I love and it is my responsibility to honor them. I know that someday I might not be married and I've come to accept that as a fate that all of my married-then-divorced transsexual friends have experienced. I know that I will never be alone because of the friendships I've made over the years, not fleeting relationships, but people I talk to every day who know me.

So, it is not a choice. It is something innate. Some of us, like myself at one time, thought it was a choice, but it's not. Something will always not feel right by making the wrong choice. Every transsexual has their own unique story to tell and I hope more will come forward with their stories.


:claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps

[SarahG]

SarahG hit the nail on the head with her first response. So many trans people try so hard to repress who they are to avoid disappointing the "normal" people that surround them. ...

That's why I always viewed trans people as brave. Others look at the same people and call them selfish. While that is also true, to an extent. When this time period is history, I believe the 'brave' concept will win out.

I was also implying what you said, when I wrote about sacrificing for love. But my experience is that, when you doing things for others out of love it always comes back to you as something good. Just not in ways you realize or expect.

Selfish? No, the only way I could see taking that argument, was if someone was somehow trying to say it was their duty to NOT transition for some reason. But that argument breaks down quickly.

On the most basic level, people need to help themselves before they can help others. A parent so fucked up with gender issues that they can't function anymore, has their potential to help & support their kids decrease dramatically.

And in the case of people that wait to transition until their kids grow up, once the kids are independent from their parents, it would be selfish of those kids to think they can dictate how their parents look.

[SarahG]

Essentially, you appear to be proposing the theory which says that transsexualism is a neurological intersexed condition--ie the brain is a mismatch for other parts of the body. It is therefore a physical condition. This viewpoint is certainly the basis of UK Govt guidelines for the treatment of transsexuals.

This theory is at odds with another, which suggests that transsexualism is a mental disorder. This viewpoint appears to hold more sway in the US and Canada.


Well, the two theories don't HAVE to be taken to be mutually exclusive.

Whether we take the position that there is some kind of brain-intersex condition going on here, the truth of the matter is that there are certainly a lot of people who report experiencing emotional/psychological duress from that brain-sex mismatch. The term for that emotional turmoil being gender dysphoria.

I think it would be relatively easy to show gender dysphoria does in fact exist quite frequently. Just look at how many suicides we see involving trans people, how much self destructive behavior, addiction problems- I could go on and on.

Dysphoric disorders exist other than gender dysphoria. All dysphoria is, is a generic scientific way of saying you're dissatisfied with life (obviously the more dissatisfied you are, the more intense the dysphoria is). It can range from virtually insignificantly mild to the point where the patient is actively trying to kill themselves. You don't have to be trans, and you don't have to be biologically abnormal to be intensely dissatisfied with life. It's a perfectly reasonable situation to be in, and many people with dysphoric problems have rational reasons behind that dysphoria.

It would be a mistake to simply reclassify transsexualism as a biological variation if it comes at the cost of forgetting that so many of the patients do develop dysphoric duress from that variation. Some people do claim, perhaps genuinely & truly, that therapy has helped them deal with some of their dysphoria... I am not inclined to say those statements are incorrect. I don't personally feel that therapy helps, but I don't personally feel therapy helps anyone, with any condition.

But on the flip side, it would be a mistake to simply say that the dysphoria indicates its purely psychological. There are many disorders in the DSM that are purely physical, biological conditions that cannot be treated with therapy. Schizophrenia, as an example, is a physical disorder that can be tangibly diagnosed using scientific methods, and the treatment of that disorder involves drugs... you would not be able to treat a schizophrenic with therapy, at least no more than you'd be able to treat someone with syphilis with therapy.

What would I like to see? I'd like to see combining the two schools of thought on the subject, with radically rewritten treatment protocols prohibiting stuff like aversion therapy, reparative therapy, or any of the other brutal abuses that clinics will subject trans people to in the name of "treatments." If someone doesn't need the therapy, they don't need the therapy. But some will definitely need it.

[SarahG]

[
So, it is not a choice. It is something innate. Some of us, like myself at one time, thought it was a choice, but it's not. Something will always not feel right by making the wrong choice. Every transsexual has their own unique story to tell and I hope more will come forward with their stories.

Exactly, it's lifestyle that's a choice, not what your situation is in terms of stuff like gender.

By lifestyle I mean it as in the way its defined in the dictionary, not referring to any so-called "alternative lifestyle" or "gay lifestyle." There is a virtually endless list of ways a trans person may live their life, just like there is for GG's, GB's, or anyone else for that matter.

[blacktgirls]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

I think I know which girl you are referring to, because I saw the same picture. In my opinion, I think it's a denial issue. I think a few people have stated that before my comment. Perhaps they don't want to the conclusion that the feelings that they are probably having are real so they denial it by getting 6 packs and making themselves appear more masculine. I have a friend who recently realized that he is really a she, and before that she was kind of muscle built and got tattoos and whatnot. And was really a man's man, but come to find out he was really a she. She is now on the road to her transition. the case of your friend shows that she did not feel she was a female as a child and that there is more choice involved in the matter.

[yodajazz]

everything in life is a choice.

Is your gender a choice?-- I mean you, personally. One day you said, "That's it, I've decided--I'm a guy." Was that how it went? You looked in the mirror, you made a decision to be a man, and that's what happened?

How a person expresses their gender is a choice. One man thinks that body building muscles is being a man. Another decides that providing for his family is being a man. Another mans feels that having sex with as many women as possible is being a man. Some men feel that a real man will slap a woman upside her head if she gets out of line. Then they pretend that it was not a choice saying; "You made me do that".

I mentioned a ts woman, who was not that hot in her first photo shoots. She chose to pursue becoming a bikini model. I saw her pic in a straight men's online magazine. Not all women are bikini models. Then again, I saw a woman on YouTube who transistioned in her fifties. She was smiling and appeared to be happy. One is not better than the other. Both arrived at a similar destination, womanhood on a different time line.

I have heard of males who believe they are transexual but chose not to transition at all, because they believe that they would make an ugly female. How you express your being is a choice. Our belief system is shaped by many forces, including media. But it is our choice to believe or not what ever is served to us.



Exactly, it's lifestyle that's a choice, not what your situation is in terms of stuff like gender.

By lifestyle I mean it as in the way its defined in the dictionary, not referring to any so-called "alternative lifestyle" or "gay lifestyle." There is a virtually endless list of ways a trans person may live their life, just like there is for GG's, GB's, or anyone else for that matter.

I'm saying that how one expresses their mental gender, and the term "lifestyle" (as SarahG defined it), are the same thing.

[MacShreach]

everything in life is a choice.

Is your gender a choice?-- I mean you, personally. One day you said, "That's it, I've decided--I'm a guy." Was that how it went? You looked in the mirror, you made a decision to be a man, and that's what happened?

How a person expresses their gender is a choice.

I agree with EXACTLY what you said --"How a person EXPRESSES their gender is a choice."

But that is NOT what I asked you. I asked you if the gender was a choice. I am not talking about gender expression, but innate gender--what you are, not how you look or how you behave, but what you know yourself to be.

So, is that a choice?

Under your interpretation, a person could present as a woman, live as a woman and be accepted as a woman (if she were convincing enough) but still, absolutely, be a man, because what she is expressing is only her choice of gender and not her gender itself. I could put on a frock and make-up--does that make me a woman?

What I am saying is that gender itself is innate (And I take on board Sarah's points) and that means there is no choice in what it is, though there is a choice in how one expresses one's gender.

Several cases really do make this very clear, including the one that brought John Money into disrepute. Essentially, Money proposed that, in certain cases of rare birth defect that caused a boy baby's penis to be so deformed as to be useless, it would be better for the child to create a surgical vagina and raise the child as a girl, since he believed, as you apparently do, that gender is a purely mental construct, and so appropriate behavioural stimuli would cause the child to develop a female gender.

The problem was that a majority of the children he caused to be treated this way either spontaneously transitioned into boy children without being told their history, or, at the point of being told their history, immediately changed into boys with full male gender expression, and a great sense of relief. Money's belief, that gender is a purely mental construct, which it would have to be were it a matter of choice or could be formed by external stimuli (being brought up as a girl,) was thus shown to be bogus.


The problem we have here is that your interpretation places you pretty much in the camp of people like Blanchard and Bailey, who believe that transsexuals are a kind of souped-up crossdresser suffering from one of two (!) mental disorders. (I admit that's putting it crudely, but it's pretty much what they say.)

On the other hand, many, many transsexual activists, like Lynne Conway for example, very strongly posit that gender is innate--it is not a matter of choice or a symptom of a mental disorder. And all over the world, medical authorities accept that transsexualism is innate--to quote the UK guidelines, "transsexualism is not a mental illness." Well, if it's not a mental condition then ipso facto it must be a physical one, and the most likely is that it is a neurological intersex condition whose cause we do not know.


I suspect that many liberal-thinking, perhaps gay or gay-supportive men find the "mental disorder" theory seductive because they feel that it does not judge or require a decision-- it simply places all expression of non-typical gender expression on a scale of degrees. It posits a "just like them but more so" frame of reference. I think this is appealing because it is non-judgemental.

Unfortunately, if gender is innate, and there is a body of very strong evidence to support this, then the mental disorder theory causes real discrimination against transsexual women. Quite apart from anything else, it leads to a situation where people suffering from a physical condition are being treated as mental patients and subjected to what amounts to aversion therapy--or torture by any other name. This is something so reactionary and neanderthal that in any other field, in the 21st century, it would be condemned outright.

So what is happening is that an attempt to be considerate, non-judgemental and accepting, turns into a situation whereby transsexual women are routinely abused by the very professionals who are there to help them.

There is no question that we are looking at two distinct phenomena here-- gender-crossing men and women with a birth genital defect. They may appear to be the same thing but they are simply not. In some cases it is in fact impossible to tell the difference and you may just have to take the subject's word for it. That is why Sarah is right-- services directed at the community must take into account all possible factors, and since there are (at least) two different phenomena at work, there has to be room for both psychiatric methods of care as well as hormonal/surgical methods. The real problem here lies not in the provision of care, but in arriving at a proper diagnosis, which involves being able to differentiate between possible underlying causes, and since there are at least two different phenomena here, all the "points on a scale," "same but more so," or whatever, simply get in the way. This leads to delay, distress and outright mistreatment.

Now, let's go back to my question--do you believe that gender is a matter of choice? (Gender--not gender expression, that is.) ?

[MacShreach]

Essentially, you appear to be proposing the theory which says that transsexualism is a neurological intersexed condition--ie the brain is a mismatch for other parts of the body. It is therefore a physical condition. This viewpoint is certainly the basis of UK Govt guidelines for the treatment of transsexuals.

This theory is at odds with another, which suggests that transsexualism is a mental disorder. This viewpoint appears to hold more sway in the US and Canada.


Well, the two theories don't HAVE to be taken to be mutually exclusive.

No, indeed they don't and I apologise if I have given the impression that I think they do. There are clearly, if not two, then more causes for confusingly similar presentations, and this means that there most certainly is a need for multiple therapy methods.

The problem lies, I believe, in arriving at a successful differential diagnosis of what a professional is actually looking at. Doing this has not been helped by the chest-thumping activities of certain people in the American psychological community, who apparently have difficulty accepting how a person with a penis could be anything other than a man.




Whether we take the position that there is some kind of brain-intersex condition going on here, the truth of the matter is that there are certainly a lot of people who report experiencing emotional/psychological duress from that brain-sex mismatch. The term for that emotional turmoil being gender dysphoria.

I think it would be relatively easy to show gender dysphoria does in fact exist quite frequently. Just look at how many suicides we see involving trans people, how much self destructive behavior, addiction problems- I could go on and on.

Dysphoric disorders exist other than gender dysphoria. All dysphoria is, is a generic scientific way of saying you're dissatisfied with life (obviously the more dissatisfied you are, the more intense the dysphoria is). It can range from virtually insignificantly mild to the point where the patient is actively trying to kill themselves. You don't have to be trans, and you don't have to be biologically abnormal to be intensely dissatisfied with life. It's a perfectly reasonable situation to be in, and many people with dysphoric problems have rational reasons behind that dysphoria.


Gender dysphoria is a symptom, not a cause; as I said above, the problem lies in determining the cause of the symptom. I believe that many people who are really TV suffer from gender dysphoria, as do transsexuals, but the treatment may need to be different. It may be enough for a man to cross-dress at weekends, possibly without even leaving the house, and this will provide sufficient relief for him to have a normal life; others may find they need more and go in for body modification.




It would be a mistake to simply reclassify transsexualism as a biological variation if it comes at the cost of forgetting that so many of the patients do develop dysphoric duress from that variation. Some people do claim, perhaps genuinely & truly, that therapy has helped them deal with some of their dysphoria... I am not inclined to say those statements are incorrect. I don't personally feel that therapy helps, but I don't personally feel therapy helps anyone, with any condition.



Again I agree. It is possible that I have overstated my position in the face of some really uninformed and I suspect deliberately misleading debate; however, for the record, the fact that there are at least two wholly separate phenomena, transsexual women and CD/TV men, does not in the least suggest that either is less worthy of care and consideration, or of treatment that is appropriate to their underlying condition. My argument has been prompted because there is a clear impetus to conflate transsexual women and CD/TV men and that this conflation causes real, actual and most of all UNNECESSARY harm to transsexual women; harm that could be avoided completely if we could arrive at a proper diagnosis earlier. This is especially the case for young transsexual girls who are fighting the hormonal clock.




But on the flip side, it would be a mistake to simply say that the dysphoria indicates its purely psychological. There are many disorders in the DSM that are purely physical, biological conditions that cannot be treated with therapy. Schizophrenia, as an example, is a physical disorder that can be tangibly diagnosed using scientific methods, and the treatment of that disorder involves drugs... you would not be able to treat a schizophrenic with therapy, at least no more than you'd be able to treat someone with syphilis with therapy.

What would I like to see? I'd like to see combining the two schools of thought on the subject, with radically rewritten treatment protocols prohibiting stuff like aversion therapy, reparative therapy, or any of the other brutal abuses that clinics will subject trans people to in the name of "treatments." If someone doesn't need the therapy, they don't need the therapy. But some will definitely need it.

Agreed again, especially the parts about aversion therapy and other abuses. I would point out that excessive reliance on psycho-therapy as a treatment for transsexualism seems to be much more of an issue in North America than elsewhere. Certainly in Europe the medical profession requires significantly higher standards of proof than apparently are needed by some psychologists. Psychiatrists are very much involved in the diagnosis of transsexualism here in the UK for example, but that is not quite the same thing-- part of their role is to arrive at a differential diagnosis that will allow other therapies like HRT and GRS to be administered appropriately, rather than to replace them, while at the same time allowing psychiatric treatment to be provided for those for whom that is appropriate.

We can only hope that in the coming years factors can finally be isolated that would make differential diagnosis easier and more of a science than a black art.

[eclipsemint]

I love the fact that we are discussing this so frankly.

All the more I love that we are all trying to accept transgender people and understand their experiences. I mean, not just lust after them, but see them as real people like us. You people are great.


The original comments that started this post were about the choices we make about our appearance and are they consistent with who we tell the world we are.


Hi Kalina, you are a beautiful and successful person, and I am glad to have met you (albeit on this forum) and thank you for telling your story.


Kalina said:
So, it is not a choice. It is something innate. Some of us, like myself at one time, thought it was a choice, but it's not. Something will always not feel right by making the wrong choice. Every transsexual has their own unique story to tell and I hope more will come forward with their stories.


Yeah, I accept that.

Though I don't pretend to understand what you have experienced in your life, I feel a resonance with your comments about choice. I have experienced Depression in the past, associated with regret about some of the choices I made and the people I hurt in the process and the lifestyle I now lead as a consequence.

I often have to self-talk to myself to pull myself out of a guilt spiral. I tell myself that I am not bound by my past choices if I don't want to be, and I should start making better choices from now on. May favourite saying is that you can have anything you want, but not everything you want, so make your choices wisely. I can't choose some things, like the fact that I am only 5' 7", but there are plenty of other ways I can present myself to the world more effectively to obtain happiness and success.

You may not have a choice about your inherent gender. Fortunately, there are so many other choices to make leading to good things, including who you prefer to be with and how you want to present yourself to the world. That's where the grey area comes in, because we are each of us unique, as you said.

I encourage you to continue finding your way, your true self and I hope you find even more happiness and acceptance in the life you want to lead.

ABOUT BODY IMAGE I WANTED TO SAY THIS...

Anybody here watch wrestling on TV? Who's your favourite Diva? I much prefer to see Kelly Kelly or Maryse on TV than Beth Phoenix. The glamazon is just not my type. But I can accept that some men must find that body type very appealing. Just because I don't find her appealing does not mean she is un-feminine.

:P

[bte]

i came across some pictures last night of one of the girls here on HA when she was a man before her transition. it had such an effect on me that i then had a dream that i was in bed with a man who had a woman's face which was slightly erotic. i would post the pics here but everybody would instantly recognize her because she still has pretty much the same face and i don't want to hurt her feelings and that's not my point for this post. to describe the pics of this man i'll reference mark wahlberg in his marky mark days. i mean ripped abs " 8 pack" , thighs of a running back, ect. this kind of body takes diet and 4 hrs a day doing crunches and weight training. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY WERE BORN FEMALE OR " BORN INTO THE WRONG BODY " BUILD SUCH A SUPERMAN BODY AND THEN SWITCH AROUND AND TAKE HORMONES AND GET BREAST IMPLANTS TO TO LOOK LIKE JENIFER LOPEZ ? OR IS EVERY THING REALLY A CHOICE ?

I think I know which girl you are referring to, because I saw the same picture. In my opinion, I think it's a denial issue. I think a few people have stated that before my comment. Perhaps they don't want to the conclusion that the feelings that they are probably having are real so they denial it by getting 6 packs and making themselves appear more masculine. I have a friend who recently realized that he is really a she, and before that she was kind of muscle built and got tattoos and whatnot. And was really a man's man, but come to find out he was really a she. She is now on the road to her transition. the case of your friend shows that she did not feel she was a female as a child and that there is more choice involved in the matter.

Well I asked her how come it took her so long to realize that she was really born a woman, and she said that she always knew but was afraid to come out. She said that she did things to make herself appear more masculine but at the end of the day she was a woman trapped in a man's body. She even joined the military and served in Iraq during the first Gulf War. By the way, she is 42, she just came out to her sister a couple of years ago. So in a way it was choice, but a choice to remain as a man for the sake for her family.

[yodajazz]

Again I agree. It is possible that I have overstated my position in the face of some really uninformed and I suspect deliberately misleading debate; however, for the record, the fact that there are at least two wholly separate phenomena, transsexual women and CD/TV men, does not in the least suggest that either is less worthy of care and consideration, or of treatment that is appropriate to their underlying condition. My argument has been prompted because there is a clear impetus to conflate transsexual women and CD/TV men and that this conflation causes real, actual and most of all UNNECESSARY harm to transsexual women; harm that could be avoided completely if we could arrive at a proper diagnosis earlier. This is especially the case for young transsexual girls who are fighting the hormonal clock.


I disagree that tv/cd’s are a whole different phenomena than transexuals. Using infectious disease as a model, two people with the same disease could require vastly different treatment, based upon the stages of the disease or the symptoms. Say one person with the infection has a temperature of 99-100, while another person has a temperature in the life-threatening range. And in between the extremes people with similar degrees of symptoms may request different levels of treatment based on their tolerance of pain or discomfort.

So I say that it is the same with the condition of gender dysphoria. Mild cases show symptoms, where the person temporarily escapes from their birth gender, while a serious case would be that the person seeks GRS for a permanent life in the opposite gender. The same principle would apply with my analogy of two people with similar symptoms. They may have different solutions to their gender dysphoria. One person may feel the need to express it and feel comfortable in doing so, whereas another person may want the feeling to go away and thus seek Aversion Therapy, or other therapies.

So while gender dysphoria a mental health condition, the disease model, works pretty well. I would agree that having it is not a choice, and that is the same for physical disease. It is very rare for someone to choose to get sick with a physical disease. That being said; medicine is constantly adjusting possible treatments at various stages of diseases. It is the maybe more so with mental health conditions. But even in the case of physical diseases the medical profession has to rely on the feelings of their patients to gage successes. It the person does not feel better then the treatment needs to be improved. Then likewise with gender dysphoria, they need to rely on the actual feelings of transgendered persons to gage the effectiveness of mental health treatment strategies.

[SarahG]

Again I agree. It is possible that I have overstated my position in the face of some really uninformed and I suspect deliberately misleading debate; however, for the record, the fact that there are at least two wholly separate phenomena, transsexual women and CD/TV men, does not in the least suggest that either is less worthy of care and consideration, or of treatment that is appropriate to their underlying condition. My argument has been prompted because there is a clear impetus to conflate transsexual women and CD/TV men and that this conflation causes real, actual and most of all UNNECESSARY harm to transsexual women; harm that could be avoided completely if we could arrive at a proper diagnosis earlier. This is especially the case for young transsexual girls who are fighting the hormonal clock.


I disagree that tv/cd’s are a whole different phenomena than transexuals.

I don't see how you can argue that.

There are people out there who simply have a fetish for "putting on hose to jerk off," who exhibit no gender dysphoria, who never exhibit gender dysphoria (in the past, present, or future).

Doesn't get more "apples to oranges" than that.

I can only speculate on what the APA is thinking from the little amount of information getting out regarding the DSM5, but from the sound of it- they agree, which is why gender dysphoria will no longer even be mentioned under the listing for transvestism.

By definition, if the patient is exhibiting gender dysphoria of some kind, they're not merely "a guy with a fetish putting on hose to jerk off."

The infectious disease comparison just doesn't work, because we're not taking about variations of the same symptom- but different symptoms entirely.

Fetishes are not, and can not be a variation of "dysphoria"


whereas another person may want the feeling to go away and thus seek Aversion Therapy, or other therapies.

That would be like someone who is gay going to a therapist hoping that it could "change them" and make them straight. Reality doesn't work that way. You can subject the patient to as much ECT, beatings, emotional abuse, verbal insults, or chemically induced sickness as you want- it will NOT "cure" someone of being TS, nor would it "cure" someone from being TV. The patient may want to change as much as they want, that doesn't mean it will help. I am assuming you know what aversion therapy is.

ECT was originally developed to treat schizophrenia (most people don't know this). The shrinks wanted, desperately, to get the treatment to work so they spent close to 50 years subjecting schizophrenic patients to the electrocution "treatments" thinking eventually it would prove to be effective. But it never did, so eventually they scrapped the idea and it's today unethical and illegal to use ECT on a schizophrenic patient, even if they beg for it. ECT has real uses, like for extreme cases of depression. But unlike when it's used to treat skitzophrenia, for extreme cases of depression it as a treatment method actually works and has been proven to be effective.

Aversion & reparative therapy for trans patients is like ECT for schizophrenia. People have been trying it for over a hundred years, its never worked, but shrinks keep trying variations of it hoping it will work. Those shrinks need to let their egos realize that they were wrong, it doesn't work, and move on to other ideas.

You simply can't beat being trans out of a patient, just as you can't beat the gayness out of a homosexual.

Back when the nazis were trying to cure homosexuality, they tried aversion therapy using gay prisoners as Ginnie pigs. It took them less than five years to realize it was a hopeless idea that simply would not work, abandoned it, and moved on to other theories. As much as I hate to say it, the Germans under Hitler with their make believe science to justify eugenics were better scientists than the idiots that pass themselves off as shrinks in American psychiatrics.

[yodajazz]

I disagree that tv/cd’s are a whole different phenomena than transexuals.

I don't see how you can argue that.

There are people out there who simply have a fetish for "putting on hose to jerk off," who exhibit no gender dysphoria, who never exhibit gender dysphoria (in the past, present, or future).

Doesn't get more "apples to oranges" than that...
.
I must admit that I was not talking about a purely sexual fetish. I had already thought about is as a possible exception. However, I have read numerous narratives, where the person started out as purely sexual with them changing clothes as soon a they had an orgasm. But it then it changed into a ‘stage’ where they remain dressed, and then in later ‘stages’ felt the need to go out, etc.

Almost every medial and mental health condition, has levels and stages. Look at Kalina’s life narrative. It’s a classic case of someone expressing a condition (gender dysphoria), in stages. Potentially Kalina’s story could have stopped at any stage and she would still be gender dysphoric by my definition.

If you look at the narratives of others, there would be some who stopped at the crossdressing stage. It does not mean that they did not have gender dysphoria. It only means that their condition was a less intense need, level or stage. And even some of those who don’t’ completely transition don’t do so because of other reasons such as social pressures, not because they have an entirely different condition.

On the subject of aversion therapy, it does seem barbaric to me, also. However, there are people who have gender dysphoric symptoms who wish to be rid of them. I think a compassionate health care provider, would have a dual strategies of helping the patient with strategies to control their desires, while at the same time getting them to accept and manage their condition.

[Nowhere]

I disagree that tv/cd’s are a whole different phenomena than transexuals.

I don't see how you can argue that.

There are people out there who simply have a fetish for "putting on hose to jerk off," who exhibit no gender dysphoria, who never exhibit gender dysphoria (in the past, present, or future).

Doesn't get more "apples to oranges" than that...
.
I must admit that I was not talking about a purely sexual fetish. I had already thought about is as a possible exception. However, I have read numerous narratives, where the person started out as purely sexual with them changing clothes as soon a they had an orgasm. But it then it changed into a ‘stage’ where they remain dressed, and then in later ‘stages’ felt the need to go out, etc.

Almost every medial and mental health condition, has levels and stages. Look at Kalina’s life narrative. It’s a classic case of someone expressing a condition (gender dysphoria), in stages. Potentially Kalina’s story could have stopped at any stage and she would still be gender dysphoric by my definition.

If you look at the narratives of others, there would be some who stopped at the crossdressing stage. It does not mean that they did not have gender dysphoria. It only means that their condition was a less intense need, level or stage. And even some of those who don’t’ completely transition don’t do so because of other reasons such as social pressures, not because they have an entirely different condition.

On the subject of aversion therapy, it does seem barbaric to me, also. However, there are people who have gender dysphoric symptoms who wish to be rid of them. I think a compassionate health care provider, would have a dual strategies of helping the patient with strategies to control their desires, while at the same time getting them to accept and manage their condition.

Yoda, I think you're a little misguided here.

It's not stages, it's degrees of gender.

Look at it like this, most people are born on either extreme, from strongly masculine, to strongly feminine.

But not everyone falls under these extremes. This goes for all sorts of people, even those who don't identify as "T". Bull dykes and twinks are probably the most obvious of examples out there.

Now, because there are concrete gender roles in society, that everyone, especially men, are pressured to follow, otherwise severe consequences happen, forcing people to express their gender in a way that is congruent to having a cock or vagina, but not to their gender makeup.

If we're to address the TV/CD subject, I am quite sure that there are a number of reasons it's done. One of those reasons is certainly a reaction to the repression they're actively engaging in, on a daily basis. Sort of like venting out something they would naturally be doing, if society allowed it. Another reason could be simply fetishizing the clothing itself. Another reason could be compensation for a lack of a female presence in one's life, when they strongly desire one. I'm quite sure that many have a combination of those three, and maybe more that I can't think of.

So, there's the continuity you're looking for. Many TV/CDs are naturally, people who are not completely masculine. They're closer to the middle. Where that lands, it varies. TGs are, on the other hand, far more to the extreme of being the polar opposite of their genitalia. And, ALL people, even those where it matches correctly have their position from masculine to feminine (think of it like a line from point A to point B) set in stone where they're born with.

These 'stages' people are describing are not stages at all, and it's unclear, since there are people who fetishize the clothing itself, but I'll explain.

If someone tries to explain their situation like these 'stages' or levels and does it predominantly for 'letting off steam' from the imbalance from being not completely masculine and having to fake it every day, and that is enough for them, then they're not as far down towards the opposite gender spectrum, as others, especially TGs, who are on the complete other end. You see, the reason it is enough is because they've still got a substantial amount of masculinity in them. But, for those who are TG, that'll never be enough, and they'll have to either reconcile the situation by transitioning, or forever be imbalanced.

Now, for those who do it for sheerly fetishitic reasons, it's all about someone achieving an orgasm, so it'll normally be enough, but then you have to get into the nature of all fetishists, and some of them need to keep on turning it up to get off, so you could get some of them modifying their bodies for such a purpose. But, I really think almost no people who transition are like that, since there are other ways of turning it up up one's fetishism via all sorts of other fetishes, and because most people who transition encounter so many obstacles in it, that it wouldn't be worth it for anyone just to get off.

So, to make it clear:

There is a spectrum of innate gender, from extreme masculine to extreme feminine, which normally is in line with their genitalia, but for a number of people is not. There are varying degrees in the middle. Those who are closer to the middle don't transition, since they have enough of their gender matching their genitalia to not feel completely wrong remaining as they are. But, for those who it is the complete polar opposite of their genitalia, it's so unbearable, that most have to change, and even if they repress it, it will haunt them forever.

Fetishistic TVs turning it up represent a TINY portion of those who transition, due to the ridiculous difficulty and cost involved in getting it done. TVs/CDs, most of whom do not transition, are always improperly focused on, due to the shock value of the whole thing, since they're MEN who are focusing on a kink, NOT women simply living their lives, therefore they don't get anything right, and look well over the top, since that's what gets their rocks off, and that's why this thread even exists in the first place.

Clear now?

[MacShreach]

I disagree that tv/cd’s are a whole different phenomena than transexuals. Using infectious disease as a model, two people with the same disease could require vastly different treatment, based upon the stages of the disease or the symptoms. Say one person with the infection has a temperature of 99-100, while another person has a temperature in the life-threatening range. And in between the extremes people with similar degrees of symptoms may request different levels of treatment based on their tolerance of pain or discomfort.

Baloney. You proceed from the presumption--which you analogise to the model of "the same infectious disease" -- that all forms of transgenderism are manifestations of the same thing, and then carefully select your argument, which I note is completely devoid of examples or case histories, to "prove" that. This is exactly the same unscientific "method" used by Blanchard and Bailey and as I had suspected, this places you firmly in their camp.

It is not surprising that there are so many examples of CD/TV "narratives" that support your presumptions; the people who are damaged by them are not CD/TV men but transsexual women, and since their relative numbers are tiny compared to CD/TV men, with a ratio, of at absolute highest, of around 40:1 but probably much more likely to be 100:1 or fewer, so their stories are almost totally obscured. Nevertheless there are sufficient examples of transwomen who state quite categorically that they were always women to convincingly challenge your presumptions.

There are in fact, two (or more) phenomena occurring here and one is not a development of the other. Sarah is absolutely correct.

If you wish to restrict your presumptions to CD/TV men, I would have no argument with you; since, however, you appear to consider transsexual women as men with a mental disorder, you can presume that I am against you; and that is one presumption I will not quibble with.

I note that you have still not addressed the question I put to you, do you think gender (not gender expression) is a matter of choice, and until you do, I will take any further comments in exactly the manner they deserve.

Meantime I draw your attention to this thread,

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=45342

which shows that in some parts of the world, at least, the out-of-date attitude you, along wih Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker and all the other psycho-quacks, espouse, is being swept away.

[SarahG]

I must admit that I was not talking about a purely sexual fetish.


But that's what TV is, medically speaking it IS a fetish. This isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with fetishes, and especially nothing wrong with ones that don't hurt anyone.

There are AG's as well, which opens up a topic for a whole other thread...



However, there are people who have gender dysphoric symptoms who wish to be rid of them. I think a compassionate health care provider, would have a dual strategies of helping the patient with strategies to control their desires, while at the same time getting them to accept and manage their condition.

Here's what you're missing though: this just doesn't work. You can't beat the gayness out of a gay, you can't beat the fetish out of a TV, and you can't beat the gender out of someone who is TS. It doesn't matter how much they "want to change."

Sometimes you are what you are, and the best response to that isn't to try to do the impossible, but to try to get the patient to accept that reality. Anything else is just going to go badly for the patient.

[SarahG]

Yoda, I think you're a little misguided here.

It's not stages, it's degrees of gender.

Look at it like this, most people are born on either extreme, from strongly masculine, to strongly feminine.

IMHO you're both wrong.

Fetish is not a variance of gender. A fetish isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with a safe, harmless fetish. But a fetish simply can't be a variant of gender.

As to Dykes/twinks and so forth, those are variances on the expression of gender, not a variance of gender. There's a difference.


Another reason could be simply fetishizing the clothing itself.

BINGO, this is precisely what TV is.

Consider,

There are no mass numbers of FtM TV's. Where are all the GG's who put on guy clothing for masturbation? Why aren't trans forums full of GG tv's the way they are with MtF tv's? It rarely happens. Why is it so rare?

It's pretty simple. In our society, female clothing is DESIGNED TO AROUSE MEN. The reverse, typically does not hold true (male clothing is not designed specifically with the goal in mind of arousing women). Male clothing is comfort oriented, rather than aesthetically oriented (hence "big baggy, lose fitting clothing" for guys). Girls simply don't tend to get the "charge" out of wearing guy clothing, that TVs claim for getting when wearing female clothing.

When TV's do cross dress, look at the clothing they chose to wear. They don't dress like lumberjack lesbians. They go for clothing that terms them on, and that's where all those TV stereotypes involving overly sexual or overly feminine clothing comes from.

There are GG's that fetishize clothing. What do they tend to wear? The overly sexual clothing that TV's stereotypically wear.

[RubyTS]

I have a pretty good idea who we're talking about here. We've all seen the pics. Lets not assume that she hit the gym though, maybe her body is just naturally athletic. Maybe she has to work even harder now to maintain a feminine physique. I mean she was toned yes but she wasn't like a bodybuilder. Camera angles and lighting are a mothafukka

[Nowhere]

Yoda, I think you're a little misguided here.

It's not stages, it's degrees of gender.

Look at it like this, most people are born on either extreme, from strongly masculine, to strongly feminine.

IMHO you're both wrong.

Fetish is not a variance of gender. A fetish isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with a safe, harmless fetish. But a fetish simply can't be a variant of gender.

As to Dykes/twinks and so forth, those are variances on the expression of gender, not a variance of gender. There's a difference.


Another reason could be simply fetishizing the clothing itself.

BINGO, this is precisely what TV is.

Consider,

There are no mass numbers of FtM TV's. Where are all the GG's who put on guy clothing for masturbation? Why aren't trans forums full of GG tv's the way they are with MtF tv's? It rarely happens. Why is it so rare?

It's pretty simple. In our society, female clothing is DESIGNED TO AROUSE MEN. The reverse, typically does not hold true (male clothing is not designed specifically with the goal in mind of arousing women). Male clothing is comfort oriented, rather than aesthetically oriented (hence "big baggy, lose fitting clothing" for guys). Girls simply don't tend to get the "charge" out of wearing guy clothing, that TVs claim for getting when wearing female clothing.

When TV's do cross dress, look at the clothing they chose to wear. They don't dress like lumberjack lesbians. They go for clothing that terms them on, and that's where all those TV stereotypes involving overly sexual or overly feminine clothing comes from.

There are GG's that fetishize clothing. What do they tend to wear? The overly sexual clothing that TV's stereotypically wear.

I never said that fetish was a degree of gender.

I said that SOME, not even most CD/TVs may be not entirely masculine, since there are numerous reasons for them being where they are in the first place. The vast majority are not (AS I SAID) as shown by what they wear and how they wear it.

Read the rest of my thread. I said exactly what you said right there.

[SarahG]

I never said that fetish was a degree of gender.

I said that SOME, not even most CD/TVs may be not entirely masculine, since there are numerous reasons for them being where they are in the first place. The vast majority are not (AS I SAID) as shown by what they wear and how they wear it.

Read the rest of my thread. I said exactly what you said right there.

I'm sorry but from the post it doesn't appear we are saying the same things, i.e.:


There is a spectrum of innate gender, from extreme masculine to extreme feminine, which normally is in line with their genitalia, but for a number of people is not. There are varying degrees in the middle. Those who are closer to the middle don't transition, since they have enough of their gender matching their genitalia to not feel completely wrong remaining as they are. But, for those who it is the complete polar opposite of their genitalia, it's so unbearable, that most have to change, and even if they repress it, it will haunt them forever.

From this I take it you're saying that, to use an example, a dyke would be a variance of gender (a point on that "spectrum of innate gender from extreme masculine to extreme feminine"). I'm not agreeing with that, I'm saying that a dyke would be a variance in the expression of gender, not a variance of gender.

:?:

[yodajazz]

I must admit that I was not talking about a purely sexual fetish.


But that's what TV is, medically speaking it IS a fetish. This isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with fetishes, and especially nothing wrong with ones that don't hurt anyone.

There are AG's as well, which opens up a topic for a whole other thread...



However, there are people who have gender dysphoric symptoms who wish to be rid of them. I think a compassionate health care provider, would have a dual strategies of helping the patient with strategies to control their desires, while at the same time getting them to accept and manage their condition.

Here's what you're missing though: this just doesn't work. You can't beat the gayness out of a gay, you can't beat the fetish out of a TV, and you can't beat the gender out of someone who is TS. It doesn't matter how much they "want to change."

Sometimes you are what you are, and the best response to that isn't to try to do the impossible, but to try to get the patient to accept that reality. Anything else is just going to go badly for the patient.

I have done some professional mental health work. I did say that I believed that Aversion Therapy was barbaric also. However numerous modern behviorial techniques can be used to get a person to manage a behavior that they say they do not want. One strategy is accept the behavior by using it in a way with limits. Over time the person maybe more comfortable with their behavior or the desire may diminish. The premise of it is that the person's first desire was to rid themsleves of the behavior. It starts by reframing the concept to 'manage'. That is in itself an admission of the person to own their own behavior.

[SarahG]

I must admit that I was not talking about a purely sexual fetish.


But that's what TV is, medically speaking it IS a fetish. This isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with fetishes, and especially nothing wrong with ones that don't hurt anyone.

There are AG's as well, which opens up a topic for a whole other thread...



However, there are people who have gender dysphoric symptoms who wish to be rid of them. I think a compassionate health care provider, would have a dual strategies of helping the patient with strategies to control their desires, while at the same time getting them to accept and manage their condition.

Here's what you're missing though: this just doesn't work. You can't beat the gayness out of a gay, you can't beat the fetish out of a TV, and you can't beat the gender out of someone who is TS. It doesn't matter how much they "want to change."

Sometimes you are what you are, and the best response to that isn't to try to do the impossible, but to try to get the patient to accept that reality. Anything else is just going to go badly for the patient.

I have done some professional mental health work. I did say that I believed that Aversion Therapy was barbaric also. However numerous modern behviorial techniques can be used to get a person to manage a behavior that they say they do not want. One strategy is accept the behavior by using it in a way with limits. Over time the person maybe more comfortable with their behavior or the desire may diminish. The premise of it is that the person's first desire was to rid themsleves of the behavior. It starts by reframing the concept to 'manage'. That is in itself an admission of the person to own their own behavior.

What you describe is exactly what the Clarke Institute does to treat trans patients these days.

You know what the Clarke Institute does besides treating trans patients?

They're an addiction center. That's not by coincidence. They specialize in breaking addiction and try to use the same tactics on trans people. Even with modern aversion therapy, it simply hasn't been found to work.

[yodajazz]

... If you wish to restrict your presumptions to CD/TV men, I would have no argument with you; since, however, you appear to consider transsexual women as men with a mental disorder, you can presume that I am against you; and that is one presumption I will not quibble with...



I have never said, and never implied that trans women were men with a mental disorder. Never in over 1500 posts. I simply said I believe that they are part of the same spectrum of behavior, some might use a word like syndrome of other who ‘escape’ their birth gender status. There are probably better words to use.

Infectious disease was only used as a model for simplicity. One can understand the cause of the variety of symptoms, but trace it to a single cause with infections. The causes of types of human behaviors are much more difficult to find the exact cause. A simple model, shows a pattern which is possible in more complex things.

I’m going to generalize and say that I believe most tv/cd people love trans women, and identify with them. They are not out cause them harm. The problem is with the general limited perception of human behavior, not with the CD’s who have the courage to express themselves.

But I will step back and say that my general philosophy in life is that all people not so much different from one another as it may appear. An example of this is that all trans narratives say they felt different as a child. I believe this is true, but it is also true about probably the majority of people on the planet. I am not only talking about sexual identity, I’m just talking feeling different than others. The reality is that each person has some unique characteristic, so it is natural for them to feel different or unique.

Here’s an example. A large amount, (or vast majority) of 13 boys do not feel comfortable showering with other boys, not just those who turned out to be trans. When I was taking swim class at 13 a small group of boys tested everyone else in the shower. And looking back with my life experience, those boys, who were picked on the others, probably felt different, but they just joined with others to hide their insecurity. I’m not denying the trans experience. I’m just saying that they are not so much different from the rest of humanity as some people think (and that includes trans people themselves who say this). I assume that trans people feel sexual desire.

CD/TV’s have been cited here for wearing overtly sexual clothing. In fact the vast majority of pics of transwomen posted on this forum are more sexual than the average women I see, even in photos which they are public settings. They just pull off the look better than some CD’s, with their real breasts, etc. Even some gg’s are cited for dressing inappropriately to their age status. And there are many CD's who dress tastefully. I would say that when CD’s go out in public, that it is an indicator that their expression may have gone further than purely sexual, unless they are exposing themselves, etc.

I believe in general that the biggest reason people are made to feel so much different from other humans is to control and exploit them. To divide people, is to divide their politcal power. Its the major way to justify denying thg others their human rights.

[SarahG]

... If you wish to restrict your presumptions to CD/TV men, I would have no argument with you; since, however, you appear to consider transsexual women as men with a mental disorder, you can presume that I am against you; and that is one presumption I will not quibble with...



I have never said, and never implied that trans women were men with a mental disorder. Never in over 1200 posts. I simply said I believe that they are part of the same spectrum of behavior, some might use a word like syndrome of other who ‘escape’ their birth gender status.

You mean birth sex status, I think?


I’m going to generalize and say that I believe most tv/cd people love trans women, and identify with them. They are not out cause them harm. The problem is with the general limited perception of human behavior, not with the CD’s who have the courage to express themselves.

I completely agree!

The only thing I would say differently, is that I wouldn't say the problem is a general limited perception, but rather a general widespread perception.



CD/TV’s have been cited here for wearing overtly sexual clothing. In fact the vast majority of pics of transwomen posted on this forum are more sexual than the average women I see,

This is hungangels however. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect pictures of trans people here to be anything different from that. Most girls pictured on HA aren't overweight, does that mean obesity isn't a problem for tgirls? Of course not. When was the last time a girl on HA posted pictures from a family gathering? You simply can't tell from HA how people really dress & present themselves IRL.

If you really want to see how trans girls dress on a day to day basis, you can't go by porn forums, night clubs, or trans venues. Some of the girls here are here for self promotion, some are entertainers, some are looking to impress guys- of course the dynamics will be slanted overly sexually. Unfortunately most of the trans support sites out there do not allow non-trans memberships, but I have noticed that the picture threads on forums like this one are nothing at all like the ones seen in trans support forums. When guys aren't allowed to be members, the pictures I see people post don't show any fashion variance from the normal gg population.

It would be like saying most guys introduce themselves by flashing their cock because of how many noobs start their membership here that way.


even in photos which they are public settings.

I haven't observed that one. If you're talking about the picture thread(s) of "passable girls out in public," you have to remember that a good deal of those pictures are from (especially thai) night clubs. I'm sure if I made a picture thread of "GG's in public" and then went around to nightclubs to get pictures for it, it would create the illusion that most GG's dress overly sexually.



Even some gg’s are cited for dressing inappropriately to their age status.

Sure, anytime someone is trying to desperately cling to youth they lost decades ago it's not a pretty sight. 55+ y/old GG grandmothers in miniskirts for instance.

This is a particularly common stereotype for TS people, not because of TVs, but because of late transitioners who transition in their 50s, feel so bad about all their "good years" that they missed out on, and desperately try to make up for it by dressing like a teenager. I don't think there is a person in the community who isn't familiar with the late transitioned baby boomers who only wear miniskirts & pumps in their day to day lives.

[yodajazz]

I must admit that I was not talking about a purely sexual fetish.


But that's what TV is, medically speaking it IS a fetish. This isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with fetishes, and especially nothing wrong with ones that don't hurt anyone.

There are AG's as well, which opens up a topic for a whole other thread...



However, there are people who have gender dysphoric symptoms who wish to be rid of them. I think a compassionate health care provider, would have a dual strategies of helping the patient with strategies to control their desires, while at the same time getting them to accept and manage their condition.

Here's what you're missing though: this just doesn't work. You can't beat the gayness out of a gay, you can't beat the fetish out of a TV, and you can't beat the gender out of someone who is TS. It doesn't matter how much they "want to change."

Sometimes you are what you are, and the best response to that isn't to try to do the impossible, but to try to get the patient to accept that reality. Anything else is just going to go badly for the patient.

I have done some professional mental health work. I did say that I believed that Aversion Therapy was barbaric also. However numerous modern behviorial techniques can be used to get a person to manage a behavior that they say they do not want. One strategy is accept the behavior by using it in a way with limits. Over time the person maybe more comfortable with their behavior or the desire may diminish. The premise of it is that the person's first desire was to rid themsleves of the behavior. It starts by reframing the concept to 'manage'. That is in itself an admission of the person to own their own behavior.

What you describe is exactly what the Clarke Institute does to treat trans patients these days.

You know what the Clarke Institute does besides treating trans patients?

They're an addiction center. That's not by coincidence. They specialize in breaking addiction and try to use the same tactics on trans people. Even with modern aversion therapy, it simply hasn't been found to work.

This part of the discussion is only about a very limited past of the transgender community. If a person goes to a mental health professional and says that they want to change a specific behavior pattern, then it would be a duty for the professional provide or guide the persons to services. People should do this naturally anyway. That is examine whether or not certain things in their lives are helping or hurting them reach thier higher goals. And addictions are are good example of this. The first step of the twelve step program is to accept that their addiction is part of them. They then go on to manage their behavior in steps. But they always identify their addictive behavior as part of themsleves. I am saying that in some cases a trans person may not wish for that behavior to dominate their lives, or express it openly. It would be that person's choice to do so, just as it should be for another person to choose to live it out. I think that everyone on this forum believes that people should be able to live in what they believe is their mental gender. I say others should allowed to choose otherwise, but not tortured because of their choice.

I generally feel that a therapy called Cognitive Behavior Therapy is the best approach. And that's mostly about using reasoning, to help a person do what they feel is in their best interests.

[SarahG]

That is examine whether or not certain things in their lives are helping or hurting them reach thier higher goals.


One of the problems with that is that would open up the doors for subjecting patients to aversion therapy whether they want that or transitioning.

All you'd have to do is show how the social stigmatization & discrimination due to gender expression variance causes social functionality & SEC earning potential problems. To say nothing of the way the "do no harm" oath could be taken to mean "not mutilating perfectly healthy tissue" [aka srs].

Not to mention, in our society not everyone gets a say in how their medical treatment goes. Children, for instance are subjected to aversion therapy even when they want to transition, simply because their parents are placed in charge of deciding medical decisions for them. A good number of the Clarke Institute complaints out there are from people who, as children, were forced to go there & be treated as addicts, simply for being trans.

Accepting aversion therapy is a huge Pandora's box simply because defining gender expression variance as a mental illness allows clinics & shrinks to assert their (biased) views. After all, if the patient is "crazy" what say should they have in the matter?


I am saying that in some cases a trans person may not wish for that behavior to dominate their lives, or express it openly.


What do you mean by "that behavior"? I am not clear on what you mean here.

[yodajazz]

...
I note that you have still not addressed the question I put to you, do you think gender (not gender expression) is a matter of choice, and until you do, I will take any further comments in exactly the manner they deserve.

Meantime I draw your attention to this thread,

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=45342

which shows that in some parts of the world, at least, the out-of-date attitude you, along wih Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker and all the other psycho-quacks, espouse, is being swept away.
Okay, okay, you just want me to say it. Gender is not a choice. I already said that it is not a choice for a person to be born with certain chromosomes. This would include any physical characteristics, including things like gonad, ovaries, and on and on.

But I would say that what you keep wanting me to say is not that important. This is because most of human life is about expression. If you were given only one type of food to eat, then you still express yourself by the quantity you eat, etc. And most all expression is about mental choice. The major exception would be things like coughing or epiletic fits. And those are just body reations to physical stimuli.

In fact transsexuals are major example of that life is about expression. They say of their life force goes beyond the body’s gender presentation. The fact that transsexuals say they are born in the wrong body actually does not mean that much, in reality. The struggle is about the right to express themselves according to their mental identity.

[SarahG]

The struggle is about the right to express themselves according to their mental identity.

I would agree with that.

[yodajazz]

I am saying that in some cases a trans person may not wish for that behavior to dominate their lives, or express it openly.


What do you mean by "that behavior"? I am not clear on what you mean here.

I mean presenting themselves In their mental gender, providing they indentify as trans. I would also include someone who cross dresses but wishes to not do it. I guess another way to say the same thing, is to phyiscally express their gender dysphoria.

I just thought about the fact that a gender dysphoric person could have other behavior issues such as sexual or drug addiction. In such cases the person would need to examine their whole lifestyle, not just he behavior itself.

[SarahG]

I am saying that in some cases a trans person may not wish for that behavior to dominate their lives, or express it openly.


What do you mean by "that behavior"? I am not clear on what you mean here.

I mean presenting themselves In their mental gender, providing they indentify as trans.

Identifies as trans? Who identifies as trans!? The whole issue isn't about identifying as trans, its about identifying as the opposite birth sex status (for a MtF this would mean identifying as female).



I guess another way to say the same thing, is to phyiscally express their gender dysphoria.

You're misusing the term gender dysphoria here.

The correct way of saying this would be "to physically express their gender."

Gender dysphoria is emotional or psychological duress resulting from the clash between sex status & gender identity.

[yodajazz]

[quote="SarahG"]To say nothing of the way the "do no harm" oath could be taken to mean "not mutilating perfectly healthy tissue" .[\quote]

Not mutilating perfectly healthy tissues as a definition of harm, would mean eliminating most cosmetic surgeries. And to carry it even further, one could say that a doctor was mutilating healthy tissue to insert a defective heart valve.

Their argument is weak.

[Alyssa87]

i really like this discussion the two of you are having.

thank you both. i wish all HA threads were like this one.

(if i may)
by definition, TV's are a totally different case than TS. i dont need to explain why to either of you.
i do think that there may be SOME genuine transgender feelings inside a TV. but typically it is fetish feuled.

CD's may be more likely to posess real TG feelings. I know. As much as i hate to say this, i was one through High School. I didnt consider myself truely TS until i saw real effects of hormones.

when i see TV/TS. i sort of cringe because of this.

but we girls must keep in mind that the differences are mostly personal.
meaning many (if not most) trans-attracted men arent interested in our dysphoria, but other PHYSICAL things.
Also, regardless of our (TSs) physical changes thru HRT & surgery, many people feel like if theres a dick there, its still the same thing.

so because of all this, the differentiation between the two will probably never be as pronounced as we'd like.

[SarahG]

To say nothing of the way the "do no harm" oath could be taken to mean "not mutilating perfectly healthy tissue" .

Not mutilating perfectly healthy tissues as a definition of harm, would mean eliminating most cosmetic surgeries. And to carry it even further, one could say that a doctor was mutilating healthy tissue to insert a defective heart valve.

Their argument is weak.

I agree their argument is weak, BUT

None of the other procedures that people group along with SRS in defending SRS is sterilizing... and srs is. That's what makes it as an issue harder to work with.

The medical community has severe problems when it comes to people's reproductive rights, most especially when we're talking about groups that don't have full control over their medical decisions in the first place (children, and the mentally ill).

Since transsexualism is in the DSM, people who are transitioning at a young age have both problems to get passed to get any cooperation from the medical community. It's hard to, as a minor, get plastic surgery even when the parents are on board with the idea, and that's not sterilizing.

A sterilizing "elective" procedure on someone who is mentally ill, a child, or both? Yikes, of course thats going to be an uphill battle.

[SarahG]

i do think that there may be SOME genuine transgender feelings inside a TV. but typically it is fetish feuled.

Until recently the medical community has agreed.

That's why when you look up transvestism in the DSM4, one of the variances of the condition is transvestism with a marker of gender dysphoria. But they're doing away with that classification scheme for the DSM5, according to what little information is being leaked from the APA.


CD's may be more likely to posess real TG feelings.

A CD isn't a real condition, it's just a slang term. Some people say they were a "CD before they transitioned," which in clinical/medical language doesn't actually mean anything.

Medically, there are only TV's and TS's, and the difference between them is that one is fetish based, while the other is duress based.


I know. As much as i hate to say this, i was one through High School. I didnt consider myself truely TS until i saw real effects of hormones.

But was it a fetish before hrt for you? That is to say, would you "cd so you could go masturbate"?

You can't tell a TS from a TV apart because some people who are TV do partially transition, which is a fact that is often (perhaps even intentionally) overlooked. There are TVs who go on hrt, there are even TVs who have gotten implants. I tend to think people ignore this because they don't know how to make sense of it.

[Alyssa87]

i do think that there may be SOME genuine transgender feelings inside a TV. but typically it is fetish feuled.

Until recently the medical community has agreed.

That's why when you look up transvestism in the DSM4, one of the variances of the condition is transvestism with a marker of gender dysphoria. But they're doing away with that classification scheme for the DSM5, according to what little information is being leaked from the APA.


CD's may be more likely to posess real TG feelings.

A CD isn't a real condition, it's just a slang term. Some people say they were a "CD before they transitioned," which in clinical/medical language doesn't actually mean anything.

Medically, there are only TV's and TS's, and the difference between them is that one is fetish based, while the other is duress based.


I know. As much as i hate to say this, i was one through High School. I didnt consider myself truely TS until i saw real effects of hormones.

But was it a fetish before hrt for you? That is to say, would you "cd so you could go masturbate"?

You can't tell a TS from a TV apart because some people who are TV do partially transition, which is a fact that is often (perhaps even intentionally) overlooked. There are TVs who go on hrt, there are even TVs who have gotten implants. I tend to think people ignore this because they don't know how to make sense of it.

i said i considered myself a CD. more often i used the term 'tranny' but whatever.
and i didnt say that i thought CDing was fetish fueled did i?

masturbating had nothing to do with my identification once i started mones. i'm talking about my titties mostly, but also the overall softening of my features.

looking back, i can say i have always been transsexual- but at the time i didnt have the insight i do now.

to this day, (although i know its wrong) i tend to roll my eyes when i see a bitch that looks hard and has never taken mones says 'i'm a transsexual'.

[SarahG]

and i didnt say that i thought CDing was fetish fueled did i?


No, and that's why I asked for clarification.

There are people out there with personal agendas who want to make it look like people start off "as sexual deviants with a fetish" who then decide to transition later on.

The argument is used routinely to prevent trans acceptance and to prevent legal reforms. It is actually the reason why discrimination against trans people is legal in New Hampshire. They were going to pass a discrimination bill protecting trans people this year but it got shot down immediately using the "its just a fetish" arguments.

My way of arguing against those arguments is showing that what they're describing simply doesn't often happen, it isn't reflective of ts people at all, and is caused by misconceptions relating to tv's.



to this day, (although i know its wrong) i tend to roll my eyes when i see a bitch that looks hard and has never taken mones says 'i'm a transsexual'.

Its understandable if you think about it. The reason why people think its a choice, and the reason why people think its an irrational choice- is because of all the people who rush transitioning, immediately pre-everything come out to work, and then immediately pre-everything go fulltime the day after coming out.

There's nothing but misconceptions to be gained from someone who says, seemingly on impulse to their boss "oh, i am trans and i will be fulltime on monday, hope you don't mind... if you do i'll just sue you" on a friday, with nothing but a weekend shopping spree to as far as a transition.

Throw in the way trans support forums tend to be dominated by pre-everythings who think they can tell other people how they should transition, or how they should deal with problems in their life-- and it's a no brainer that there is going to be resentment.

[Solitary Brother]

I use to think being a tranny is about looks and all that but it really isnt.
Its about that person being comfortable in their own skin.
So no matter how horrible other people may think they look it is how they feel that matters the most.
Some girls are brick hard but feel cunt.....some girls are as delicate as daisies but are very insecure about themselves.
I think ultimately transexuals want to FEEL they are a woman regardless of how they look or what others say.....
That is why they like certain types of guys because they really make them feel they are a woman.
It took me a while to really get this.
Yeah...its also about acceptance from society and to a lesser degree
passability but ultimately being trans is an internal struggle.

[Alyssa87]

I use to think being a tranny is about looks and all that but it really isnt.
Its about that person being comfortable in their own skin.
So no matter how horrible other people may think they look it is how they feel that matters the most.
Some girls are brick hard but feel cunt.....some girls are as delicate as daisies but are very insecure about themselves.
I think ultimately transexuals want to FEEL they are a woman regardless of how they look or what others say.....
That is why they like certain types of guys because they really make them feel they are a woman.
It took me a while to really get this.
Yeah...its also about acceptance from society and to a lesser degree
passability but ultimately being trans is an internal struggle.


can we get a round of applause for this post?

can we all look forward to more clearheaded, non-judgmental and hatefueled posts like this one, brother?

[MacShreach]

I use to think being a tranny is about looks and all that but it really isnt.
Its about that person being comfortable in their own skin.
So no matter how horrible other people may think they look it is how they feel that matters the most.
Some girls are brick hard but feel cunt.....some girls are as delicate as daisies but are very insecure about themselves.
I think ultimately transexuals want to FEEL they are a woman regardless of how they look or what others say.....
That is why they like certain types of guys because they really make them feel they are a woman.
It took me a while to really get this.
Yeah...its also about acceptance from society and to a lesser degree
passability but ultimately being trans is an internal struggle.


can we get a round of applause for this post?

can we all look forward to more clearheaded, non-judgmental and hatefueled posts like this one, brother?

:claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps

[MacShreach]

looking back, i can say i have always been transsexual- but at the time i didnt have the insight i do now.



I think a lot of people-- and not just those who are "anti," if you like-- mistake what you have just described for some sort of "points on a scale" model to describe transsexualism.

But just because the process of becoming self-aware is necessarily a progression--sometimes swift, sometimes not so swift, does not mean that what a person is aware of is changing.

A good analogy might be with dyslexia, and I mean absolutely no disrespect here, which was also not recognised by the wider society or the medical community until recently. I know several people with varying degrees of dyslexia, and all of them went through stages of thinking they were stupid (largely thanks to stupid teachers,) mentally handicapped and even in one case, schizophrenic. But when they were actually diagnosed as dyslexic they all just went "Of course-- that was what it was all along!" And they proceeded to deal with it, learning to cope with life as people with dyslexia. But they were no more dyslexic for understanding what was going on. They always had been, they just didn't know.

I think, in the same way, that just because a transsexual person may be confused about what is going on and eventually, perhaps after trying many other avenues, finally realises what the real issue is and begins to deal with it, this in no way whatsoever means that that person is getting "more transsexual," or that somehow there is a progression of the underlying transsexualism. There is a progression in the understanding of it, but that is not the same thing at all.

I hope I expressed that reasonably, it's too late here. 'Night.

[yodajazz]

looking back, i can say i have always been transsexual- but at the time i didnt have the insight i do now.



I think a lot of people-- and not just those who are "anti," if you like-- mistake what you have just described for some sort of "points on a scale" model to describe transsexualism.

But just because the process of becoming self-aware is necessarily a progression--sometimes swift, sometimes not so swift, does not mean that what a person is aware of is changing.

A good analogy might be with dyslexia, and I mean absolutely no disrespect here, which was also not recognised by the wider society or the medical community until recently. I know several people with varying degrees of dyslexia, and all of them went through stages of thinking they were stupid (largely thanks to stupid teachers,) mentally handicapped and even in one case, schizophrenic. But when they were actually diagnosed as dyslexic they all just went "Of course-- that was what it was all along!" And they proceeded to deal with it, learning to cope with life as people with dyslexia. But they were no more dyslexic for understanding what was going on. They always had been, they just didn't know.

I think, in the same way, that just because a transsexual person may be confused about what is going on and eventually, perhaps after trying many other avenues, finally realises what the real issue is and begins to deal with it, this in no way whatsoever means that that person is getting "more transsexual," or that somehow there is a progression of the underlying transsexualism. There is a progression in the understanding of it, but that is not the same thing at all.

I hope I expressed that reasonably, it's too late here. 'Night.

I do understand your analogy. You say CD’s are stupid, and trans people are dyslexic. I’m mostly kidding. But in seriousness, I think that it is more difficult to prove that to very similar looking things are entirely unrelated, than the opposite.

[yodajazz]

...
The argument is used routinely to prevent trans acceptance and to prevent legal reforms. It is actually the reason why discrimination against trans people is legal in New Hampshire. They were going to pass a discrimination bill protecting trans people this year but it got shot down immediately using the "its just a fetish" arguments.

...

I would like to see something on how the law process really unfolded. I doubt whether the failure of the bill was really based upon any form of logic. I say it was probably more of fear and judgment like, “lets gain religious support by catering to their prejudices”.

As far as the ‘just a fetish’ argument, I see it as partially a case to trans people, saying “lets throw other people under the bus so we can gain more acceptance”. People here are saying that transvestites are purely sexual based. While there is certainly a sexual component to that behavior, it is rare that and expression like a man dressing up and going to a weekend convention with other tv’s is only sexual based. But I see too often trans people referring to people like tv’s and gays as sexual deviants and making the argument that they are unlike those ‘disgusting’ people. I’m not denying that gays and other sexual minorities have done the same to the trans community.

There is actually a political advantage to identifying and defending groups of people whose behaviors are somewhat different. Usually that is done by pointing out their possible positive qualities. And those positive arguments reflect back to the person making them. But this is part of a larger political argument that is beyond the scope of the usual forum topics.

[Nowhere]

I never said that fetish was a degree of gender.

I said that SOME, not even most CD/TVs may be not entirely masculine, since there are numerous reasons for them being where they are in the first place. The vast majority are not (AS I SAID) as shown by what they wear and how they wear it.

Read the rest of my thread. I said exactly what you said right there.

I'm sorry but from the post it doesn't appear we are saying the same things, i.e.:


There is a spectrum of innate gender, from extreme masculine to extreme feminine, which normally is in line with their genitalia, but for a number of people is not. There are varying degrees in the middle. Those who are closer to the middle don't transition, since they have enough of their gender matching their genitalia to not feel completely wrong remaining as they are. But, for those who it is the complete polar opposite of their genitalia, it's so unbearable, that most have to change, and even if they repress it, it will haunt them forever.

From this I take it you're saying that, to use an example, a dyke would be a variance of gender (a point on that "spectrum of innate gender from extreme masculine to extreme feminine"). I'm not agreeing with that, I'm saying that a dyke would be a variance in the expression of gender, not a variance of gender.

:?:

No, three things:

A. That is not about fetishism. Where is it mentioned?

B. Most importantly, you aren't addressing WHY people end up where they are, say certain dykes being butch. It's not like it comes out of nowhere (no pun intended). People gravitate towards where they natural are comfortable, where they're wired to be comfortable, where their gender truly is. It's only outside of the heteronormative community where substantial more freedom is socially accepted, which is why you see more gender variance aligned correctly with people's true selves there.

C. If you are to address the CD/TV thing, there isn't always one reason for it, which means it could be all fetishism or partially some innate gender comfort away from the norms.

[Nowhere]

...
The argument is used routinely to prevent trans acceptance and to prevent legal reforms. It is actually the reason why discrimination against trans people is legal in New Hampshire. They were going to pass a discrimination bill protecting trans people this year but it got shot down immediately using the "its just a fetish" arguments.

...

I would like to see something on how the law process really unfolded. I doubt whether the failure of the bill was really based upon any form of logic. I say it was probably more of fear and judgment like, “lets gain religious support by catering to their prejudices”.

As far as the ‘just a fetish’ argument, I see it as partially a case to trans people, saying “lets throw other people under the bus so we can gain more acceptance”. People here are saying that transvestites are purely sexual based. While there is certainly a sexual component to that behavior, it is rare that and expression like a man dressing up and going to a weekend convention with other tv’s is only sexual based. But I see too often trans people referring to people like tv’s and gays as sexual deviants and making the argument that they are unlike those ‘disgusting’ people. I’m not denying that gays and other sexual minorities have done the same to the trans community.

There is actually a political advantage to identifying and defending groups of people whose behaviors are somewhat different. Usually that is done by pointing out their possible positive qualities. And those positive arguments reflect back to the person making them. But this is part of a larger political argument that is beyond the scope of the usual forum topics.

Look, until rights are in place, this is pretty much necessary. People use the fetish argument to push their moralist/religious views into law, to oppress the trans community, so you cannot add fuel to their fire!!

Once everything is in order and everything is as it should be, then you can start addressing the gray areas.

This is why I refuse to support anything that portrays the trans community in ANY way like the 'circus freak bearded lady.' To this date it is still happening everywhere. Jerry Springer does it. Maury does it. The Transamerica movie did it by making her look as poorly transitioning as possible. And, I know this is going to make some people angry here, but the drag community does, too, by making the idea of 'trans' being not about being 'women' but an exaggeration of it, distancing themselves severely from being 'real women.'

You see, it's not about being 'women on the inside.'

It's about NOT being 'women on the inside.'

That's the punch line people go for, and that's why it's damaging.

Now before I get flamed, I'd like everyone here to imagine if no tgirls went on Springer or Maury, and there was no drag community out there. I'd like people to imagine if it was instead, clearly focused on as a MEDICAL condition that needs to be properly addressed at youth so that people have a choice to be in line with their actual gender. Think of how people wouldn't be thrown out on the street for doing it, or be fired from jobs for being who they are, beaten up, abused, killed, you name it. It would just be a condition which needs to be treated by transitioning. Even older people transitioning would be looked at with sympathy as in "Why weren't they treated sooner?" instead of the reality that most people see them as older pervs today. Wouldn't that be amazing?

In my eyes everything that works against such a reality just harms girls every single day.

So, that's why it's important to emphasize the distance between a fetish and gender identity, even though a handful of fetishists may have some tiny mix in it.

If you put it together, even for altruistic reasons, it just ruins it for everyone else.

It's like trying to save one person from drowning, and by doing that, you sink and drown everyone on the entire ship in the process.

Get it?

[phobun]

I use to think being a tranny is about looks and all that but it really isnt.
Its about that person being comfortable in their own skin.
So no matter how horrible other people may think they look it is how they feel that matters the most.
Some girls are brick hard but feel cunt.....some girls are as delicate as daisies but are very insecure about themselves.
I think ultimately transexuals want to FEEL they are a woman regardless of how they look or what others say.....
That is why they like certain types of guys because they really make them feel they are a woman.
It took me a while to really get this.
Yeah...its also about acceptance from society and to a lesser degree
passability but ultimately being trans is an internal struggle.

Have you ever struggled internally with your gender identity?

[SarahG]

I would like to see something on how the law process really unfolded. I doubt whether the failure of the bill was really based upon any form of logic. I say it was probably more of fear and judgment like, “lets gain religious support by catering to their prejudices”.

As the press coverage went, what happened was one of the republican state legislators started making comments to the press & public about how if gender identity discrimination is outlawed, it would allow transvestites to use female public restrooms where little girls could be present.

The argument was flawed, for a number of reasons, once a few of the republican legislators went around publicly clinging to the restroom issue, the bill's support simply evaporated right then and there.

I suppose its possible they were just using the TVs in bathrooms argument for political capital -hoping it would increase religious right support or something to that effect, but there's no way of knowing just what went on in these politicians' heads besides what they've publicly stated.

Still, even if their underlying objective was religious right support, the fact that the "fetishist guys in drag masturbating in bathrooms in front of little girls" was their ONLY argument in arguing against the bill, shows that the argument was pretty convincing. The democrat support also evaporated for the bill after those arguments were being made to the press, I kind of doubt their intentions were to gain support from the religious right...

The republicans never even got to their other (flawed) arguments in their anti-LGBT play book. I was actually quite surprised when I didn't start hearing those other arguments (i.e. the idea that "trans people just want special rights over everyone else").



People here are saying that transvestites are purely sexual based.

Well, once the DSM5 comes out- by the medical texts they will be defined that way. Of course medical texts can easily be incorrect.

That stated, just because people are saying that TVs are purely sexual based, doesn't mean it isn't.

Even if it's not purely fetish based, there's still a sexual component there that simply can't be dismissed, and that component has no equivalent among TS people. The two groups (TV and TS) are basically being grouped together because A- the people who would want to harm both groups, and B- the fact that all trans people "look the same" to the general public (this goes back to not being able to visually tell the difference between TS and TV people). And since TV is so much more common then TS, people who don't know what they're talking about keep thinking TV is reflective of TS people when that's simply not true.


But I see too often trans people referring to people like tv’s and gays as sexual deviants and making the argument that they are unlike those ‘disgusting’ people.

I haven't noticed that being said in terms of gays. I've seen trans people strongly object to being grouped with gays, but I haven't noticed that to be under the argument of "gays being sexually deviant."

Why object to being grouped with gays? Well, there is no logic behind grouping L-G-B-TS-TV people together as one group to start with. The only "common ground" is the people who would want to harm all those different groups.

If anything has played a role in trans people wanting to separate from the L-G-B community, it's the transphobia that's rampant in certain parts of the LGB community. There is a very common mutual desire for the groups to split, not just "trans people wanting to ditch gays"- hence why so many gay groups have never adopted the T in LGBT to begin with, or the groups that have in name... strictly for show (i.e. HRC).

As to referring to TV's as "sexual deviants," that's because in the eyes of the general public, they are. It doesn't matter what the reality is- the truth is that politicians, religious groups, and normal everyday people simply have this irrational fear response to anything sexual in nature.... that fear response gets exponentially more intense if it ever involves being in public or around children. As a result the general public had, has, and will continue to have problems with TVs from the start no matter how baseless that rash response maybe in reality. Even if being TV isn't a purely sexual thing, even if that's only half the story- that "40 year old ex nhl player putting on hose to jerk off" stereotype is still going to be a problem to the sheep, and there will be no way to kill that stereotype because of the way its constantly reinforced from the mass media, and some tvs themselves.

From that point, "throwing tv people under the bus for acceptance" is justifiable if that's the only way the general public will ever come on board with reform (legally and medically). Generally speaking tv people are perfectly capable of staying in the closet, and do not need to worry about discrimination problems, identification papers, birth certificates, name changes, marriage law, medical procedures, or any of those other problems. Beyond that, any ts-inclusive protections that are established, would also apply to tv people. If TS-TV separation is what gets those bills threw the floors of legislative bodies, then that's better for everyone.

To give an example, if a bill was signed into law making it illegal to discriminate based on "gender identity or gender expression" (those two magic phrases), even if the goal was only to protect ts people, it would be protecting both groups by definition. It would be just as illegal to fire someone for being TS, as it would be to fire someone for being a tv.

This is not like the gays ditching trans people, because gay-only protections can NEVER be adapted to protect trans people because they lack trans inclusive language (those two magic phrases).

[SarahG]

B. Most importantly, you aren't addressing WHY people end up where they are, say certain dykes being butch.

Sorry, I must have been misleading earlier. To put it another way, we have this MtF TV occurrence (for lack of a better word) that this fetish stereotype (real or perceived) comes from. Yet we don't have the same occurrence from the GG population, which indicates we're talking about more than "what someone finds comfortable."

The internet is not full of GG's putting on male clothing to masturbate (I mean that figuratively, not literally "full of"). Trans venues online or in person, even when they cater to FtM's specifically, don't commonly have FtM tv's come on and start making posts about "how horny wearing guy clothing makes them," or that they're "masturbating while making posts while wearing guy clothing."

Because this fetish occurrence (even if it isn't the whole story) is so one-sided, we're talking about more than gender expression variance.

There are flamer gay guys who are variant in gender expression, but don't exhibit any fetish relating to their abnormal gender expression. In that sense, flamer gay guys exhibit a variance of gender expression, because that's what makes them comfortable, similarly to how some dykes "are butch" and both are characteristically different from male TVs (or perhaps the other way around, male TVs are characteristically different from butch dykes or flamer gay guys).

[SarahG]

Look, until rights are in place, this is pretty much necessary. People use the fetish argument to push their moralist/religious views into law, to oppress the trans community, so you cannot add fuel to their fire!!

Once everything is in order and everything is as it should be, then you can start addressing the gray areas.

Exactly. Because if we wait for people to be ok in "mainstream society" with a group of people that are, at the least, stereotyped as being sexually deviant, that day will never ever come.

In our society, religious views are injected into every day society whether we like it or not, and it's unavoidable because of how large our religious factions are.


Now before I get flamed, I'd like everyone here to imagine if no tgirls went on Springer or Maury, and there was no drag community out there. I'd like people to imagine if it was instead, clearly focused on as a MEDICAL condition that needs to be properly addressed at youth so that people have a choice to be in line with their actual gender. Think of how people wouldn't be thrown out on the street for doing it, or be fired from jobs for being who they are, beaten up, abused, killed, you name it. It would just be a condition which needs to be treated by transitioning. Even older people transitioning would be looked at with sympathy as in "Why weren't they treated sooner?" instead of the reality that most people see them as older pervs today. Wouldn't that be amazing?

I am going to get controversial here, for a change (me? controversial? enter joke here, right?) and say that your example has had its moments in history.

When scientists were first experimenting with the modern versions of SRS back in the 30s & 40s, the reaction was PRECISELY as you describe. It was seen as a strictly medical situation, and people who got those experimental procedures were regarded 100% as female by mainstream society, including even the legal systems. People did not have a hard time getting female identification, hell they didn't even have a hard time getting married. Being trans does not fundamentally have to clash with ultra conservative groups, nor does it have to clash with religious groups- and this is well seen in history by Iran & Nazi Germany. I'm not saying it was all utopian, easy going under any of these times or places for trans people, as I am talking merely about the reactions of mainstream society & the systems.

The legal objections to marriage rights, changing the rules for identification papers, sex status redefinitions- all that stuff for the United States came more recently.

In fact the famous 1976 court case over postop marriage rights in New Jersey was arrived at, not because a postop wanted to be able to marry & filed suit, but because it took that long for someone in mainstream society to legally challenge such a marriage to make it an issue in the courts. When the court ruled on it, the focus of the court was in talking about gender roles within marriages, sexual functionality after srs- the issues of "sexual deviancy"/fetishes, chromosomes, and all the other usual anti-trans arguments wasn't even really mentioned. That court case is still the ONLY reason why postop marriages are legally respected in NJ to this day, and we've been wholly UNABLE to duplicate the ruling in any other state in more modern eras.

In most states in the US your marriage rights as a postop are not solidly established by stature or case law- so its at the mercy of the courts when someone tries to invalidate a postop's marriage. When that happens, what we get in more modern years isn't like 76 in NJ, but 99 in Texas (littleton).

You'd be able to tangibly point towards a trend of using these sexual/fetish arguments increasing, not decreasing over time. SRS used to be a tax deductible medical expense (in fact it was for DECADES). Since 2004ish the SRS has intermittently disallowed it, and when it ends up in court from a postop challenging the IRS, the IRS will defend against tax deductions using AG theory, and transvestism to argue that it is not a medically necessary procedure. This is a change, for the worse- not a continuation of decades old policy.

That's why when the christian fundamentalist groups start harping on how "sexually deviant" trans people are, and how that should be an argument against marriage rights for trans people- they're not talking about reinforcing "christian values" of old, but a revisionist interpretation that is not so quickly found in our history. Where are all the Christian groups' statements blasting the thought of a postop marrying a guy from back in the 1950s when SRS awareness first truly entered into the national mainstream collective minds? It doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the treatment access for trans people was based on gender role conformity. It wasn't seen as such an abnormality when gender clinics were forcing all MtF transitioners to "be the stereotypical 1950s housewife."

[MacShreach]

I have never said, and never implied that trans women were men with a mental disorder. Never in over 1500 posts. I simply said I believe that they are part of the same spectrum of behavior,



Which behaviour would that be? Men bending their gender? What is the difference between that and the "points on a scale" theory? And if they are all "part of the same spectrum of behaviour," at what point (and by what right) do you determine that the person is a woman, and not a man with a gender shift?

It's pure semantics. By stating that transsexual women are on the same spectrum of behaviour as CD/TV men, you are denying that transsexual women are women at all. Transsexual women are not men who change their dress and appearance to change their gender presentation; they are women who bring their gender presentation into line with their innate gender, unless by "spectrum of behaviour" you mean "appearing to be a woman." However since this ALSO applies to natal women, the statement is frankly meaningless.

I suspect that either that your stated foundation in behavioural therapy is blocking you, as so often is the case, to the fact that there are two different phenomena here, and this leads you to make the same mistakes that Blanchard and Bailey et alia made, or that you have been seduced by their pseudo-science and this has had the same effect.

It is clearly the case that within the group of CD/TV men there are varying degrees of intensity and of gender dysphoria, and for some of these subjects, it may be appropriate that behavioural therapies are used in order to help them manage the condition.

However we must be mindful of the fact that there are still behaviourists who believe that, for example, boys can be trained out of what these "professionals" regard as "proto-homosexual" behaviour by aversion therapy-- Ken Zucker being one. Mike Bailey is on record as saying that he believes it is a better outcome for a boy to become a homosexual man than a transsexual woman. (!) There are still behaviour therapists who claim that homosexual men can be trained out of homosexualism. I am afraid that while some areas of behavioural science may be legitimate, these people do much to remind us that much behavioural therapy is little better than speculative black-art quackery, and one remove from electric shock treatment.

The main problem is that even if it were possible to show that CD/TV men were helped by behavioural therapy methods, transsexual women just do not fall into this group at all because they have a different condition; they are not men with a mental issue, they are women with a neurological intersex condition, and as such the appropriate course of action is much more likely to be HRT followed, where appropriate, with GRS. If psychotherapy is indicated, it is only in helping the individual with the side-effects of the discovery that they are not of the gender they appeared to be at birth--on family, work etc.

However, in order to arrive at a situation where this humane and effective approach, which is already de facto or stated policy in many more enlightened countries, it is first ABSOLUTELY necessary to realise that CD/TV men and transsexual women are NOT the same thing. Otherwise we have quacks applying behavioural therapy to treat a physical condition.

In order to arrive at a proper differential diagnosis of which condition a professional is dealing with, it is first necessary to recognise and identify the different phenomena that might be the root cause of the symptoms. The whole of modern medicine is based on the principle of the differential diagnosis, or in other words, scientifically understanding and determining the cause of presented symptoms before attempting to apply therapy.

It is unfortunately typical of behavioural "therapists" that they will attempt to treat all conditions with their methods, even when there is no scientific basis for this, no proper differential diagnosis, and in fact even when the therapy causes ACTUAL HARM to the subject. We should be very careful of those who espouse behavioural therapy.



Which brings me to this point:




To divide people, is to divide their political power.



And to deny people their very existence, which is what you are attempting to do to transsexual women, right along with Blanchard, Bailey and Zucker, is to deny them any political power at all, and indeed their very right to exist.

Which brings us back to my question, which you resolutely refuse to answer, probably because you realise it cuts right through your smokescreen of touchy-feely behaviourist BS: Do you believe a person can choose their gender, as opposed to their gender expression?

[MacShreach]

looking back, i can say i have always been transsexual- but at the time i didnt have the insight i do now.



I think a lot of people-- and not just those who are "anti," if you like-- mistake what you have just described for some sort of "points on a scale" model to describe transsexualism.

But just because the process of becoming self-aware is necessarily a progression--sometimes swift, sometimes not so swift, does not mean that what a person is aware of is changing.

A good analogy might be with dyslexia, and I mean absolutely no disrespect here, which was also not recognised by the wider society or the medical community until recently. I know several people with varying degrees of dyslexia, and all of them went through stages of thinking they were stupid (largely thanks to stupid teachers,) mentally handicapped and even in one case, schizophrenic. But when they were actually diagnosed as dyslexic they all just went "Of course-- that was what it was all along!" And they proceeded to deal with it, learning to cope with life as people with dyslexia. But they were no more dyslexic for understanding what was going on. They always had been, they just didn't know.

I think, in the same way, that just because a transsexual person may be confused about what is going on and eventually, perhaps after trying many other avenues, finally realises what the real issue is and begins to deal with it, this in no way whatsoever means that that person is getting "more transsexual," or that somehow there is a progression of the underlying transsexualism. There is a progression in the understanding of it, but that is not the same thing at all.

I hope I expressed that reasonably, it's too late here. 'Night.

I do understand your analogy. You say CD’s are stupid, and trans people are dyslexic. I’m mostly kidding. But in seriousness, I think that it is more difficult to prove that to very similar looking things are entirely unrelated, than the opposite.

Well, now I understand you. You are a cheap charlatan, who, when roundly beaten in the debate, resorts to traduction.

Please assume in future that any statement I make is intended for people with more intelligence than you have.

Oh, I'm "mostly" kidding. :wink:

[Justawannabe]

I've been really hesitant to get into this discussion at all. I find some of what is being said really interesting and informative but other parts seems to be very problematic.

TV vs TS - while medically we may only have two typical definitions, sexual fetishist and individual under duress due identification with the opposite gender, the studies I've seen on cross dressing behavior definitely includes a third camp of folks who do not identify as the opposite gender nor receive sexual stimulation... just stress reduction. Who are they in this split?

Do folks become transsexual? - We have at least two folks in this thread who both mentioned that in their path to transition they would not have identified themselves as transsexual at one time. This is important to remember in our rush to shut out the gay/cross dressing crowd, as it IS a stage many transsexuals go through. THIS is why 'T' is part of GLBT, the number of people who spend some part of their transition in those communities gives us ties.

GLB and T? - It is more than being visually hard to distinguish from CD folks with a homosexual orientation. Whether we want them to or not, many many folks simply refuse to view the results of internal identification and medical intervention as actually changing sex. So to the outside world, we are the GLB, their wondering why we even came up with a T.

While it is true that there was less opposition in the legal community to transitioning at one point, part of that is we were not a large enough community to have attracted political opposition.

The medical community also did it's best to limit transitioning to people THEY viewed as women. You effectively had to pass the test to get medical help. The idea of a lesbian MtF was simply not allowed. The move to being more 'self identification' based rather than therapist approved has been a huge step forward, but has helped fuel some of the fire on the conservative side. Making 'stepford wives' was strange but somewhat acceptable... making another man hating dyke or strident feminist was not.

The conservative backlash against the counter culture put a huge spotlight on the sex lives of everyone. The conservative side of the country had lost faith in the idea of communities being able to suppress sexual and social deviance on their own and began to push for legal changes. This was not the only thing that was focused on as the conservative side awakened to the power and the threat of the left to their way of life.

Gay = deviant - There is plenty of this coming from some circles. Male homosexuality is VERY often equated to pedophile in media and legislative debate. A number of supreme court decisions mention that homosexual behavior is not entitled to the same protections as other sexual relations.

The point is that just because the right in this country is using TV as a scare term, highlighting to least acceptable TVs to make political hay, is not reason to not acknowledge that there are some parallels in the lives of TV and TS folks (oh, and those who cross dress for comfort... CD for lack of a medical term for them). Not acknowledging that only leads us back to having to earn your TS status through medical forms and/or surgeries accomplished or suffer all the legal and social slings and arrows thrown at TS folks until you do.

What does that lead to... it leads to the frantic deceptions trans folks have relied on for years to get past the gatekeepers.

What does that lead to... witch hunts both in the community and out, to root out the 'true' vs the 'false'.

If we want the transsexual to be able to get appropriate care and legal rights, throughout their lives not just after they've had their final surgery, we need to work with the cross dressing and GLB communities to legitimize those lifestyles as well.

That does not mean public sexual displays or the other things used in this thread to describe the TV, those things are acceptable from hetro men either, but the idea of being gender non-conformist. If a man could wear a skirt without being accused of being a sexual deviant and potential predator, you might not see so much paranoia and might have more success.

Oh and is gender a choice... no, but how we deal with having a gender/body conflict is. Suicide, transition, cross dressing, excessive stereotypical behavior are all choices people make due to gender dysphoria, but they are choices. Some just make a lot more sense than others.

Sean

[MacShreach]

I've been really hesitant to get into this discussion at all. I find some of what is being said really interesting and informative but other parts seems to be very problematic.

TV vs TS - while medically we may only have two typical definitions, sexual fetishist and individual under duress due identification with the opposite gender, the studies I've seen on cross dressing behavior definitely includes a third camp of folks who do not identify as the opposite gender nor receive sexual stimulation... just stress reduction. Who are they in this split?

Do folks become transsexual? - We have at least two folks in this thread who both mentioned that in their path to transition they would not have identified themselves as transsexual at one time. This is important to remember in our rush to shut out the gay/cross dressing crowd, as it IS a stage many transsexuals go through.



I think you are misreading both the posts you refer to. Both women stated quite clearly that they now understand themselves as having always been transsexual women, but in the past did not; but what changed was not their underlying status but their understanding of it. It's not the same thing at all.

One point to remember is that many CD men simply have no need to be anything else. Why should they be grouped as a bunch of not-quite transsexuals? Why can't they have pride in their own status? But recognising that the status exists as a separate classification is a prerequisite to having pride in it.

The same is true of TV men.

The point is that these are simply NOT "points on a scale." They don't even really look that way, and it has taken mountains of psychobabble, including Ray Blanchard's literal invention of a paraphilia, autogynephilia, to get them to squeeze into the same box.

I am not saying there are no similarities, either in appearance, behaviour or whatever-- what I am saying is, what on earth use is it to a young transsexual woman to treat her as if she is an effeminate gay man with a clothing fetish, for example? No denigration to gay men is intended when I say they are JUST NOT the same thing at all.





THIS is why 'T' is part of GLBT, the number of people who spend some part of their transition in those communities gives us ties.

GLB and T? - It is more than being visually hard to distinguish from CD folks with a homosexual orientation. Whether we want them to or not, many many folks simply refuse to view the results of internal identification and medical intervention as actually changing sex. So to the outside world, we are the GLB, their wondering why we even came up with a T.

While it is true that there was less opposition in the legal community to transitioning at one point, part of that is we were not a large enough community to have attracted political opposition.



I'm not disagreeing with that or the political impetus behind it (though I remain sceptical about the actual help it has been to transsexual women)




The medical community also did it's best to limit transitioning to people THEY viewed as women. You effectively had to pass the test to get medical help. The idea of a lesbian MtF was simply not allowed. The move to being more 'self identification' based rather than therapist approved has been a huge step forward, but has helped fuel some of the fire on the conservative side. Making 'stepford wives' was strange but somewhat acceptable... making another man hating dyke or strident feminist was not.



Again, these attempts to make distinction on the grounds of sexuality or orientation are appalling and have to be stopped, but that does not mean that the process of striving towards a better classification is wrong. Self Identification is a positive step but it has issues; for example there are cases where TV men have gone through the whole procedure of GRS and then decided that in fact they were not women and the doctors were guilty of malpractice, despite the fact that the men lied, cajoled and did everything they possibly could to get GRS. Doctors and patients do have to be protected and this is just another reason why we need to fully understand the differences between the phenomena we are discussing and not lump them all together in some sort of porridge of "transgender."




The conservative backlash against the counter culture put a huge spotlight on the sex lives of everyone. The conservative side of the country had lost faith in the idea of communities being able to suppress sexual and social deviance on their own and began to push for legal changes. This was not the only thing that was focused on as the conservative side awakened to the power and the threat of the left to their way of life.

Gay = deviant - There is plenty of this coming from some circles. Male homosexuality is VERY often equated to pedophile in media and legislative debate. A number of supreme court decisions mention that homosexual behavior is not entitled to the same protections as other sexual relations.

The point is that just because the right in this country is using TV as a scare term, highlighting to least acceptable TVs to make political hay, is not reason to not acknowledge that there are some parallels in the lives of TV and TS folks (oh, and those who cross dress for comfort... CD for lack of a medical term for them). Not acknowledging that only leads us back to having to earn your TS status through medical forms and/or surgeries accomplished or suffer all the legal and social slings and arrows thrown at TS folks until you do.

What does that lead to... it leads to the frantic deceptions trans folks have relied on for years to get past the gatekeepers.



I think to be fair, a number of the concerns that you and others have expressed are specific to the US and Canada and this needs to be remembered. If you look at the care policies of the UK and other European countries you will immediately see a much more evidence-based approach that tries to steer away from the speculation of behavioural theorists. I am not suggesting it is perfect, however.




If we want the transsexual to be able to get appropriate care and legal rights, throughout their lives not just after they've had their final surgery, we need to work with the cross dressing and GLB communities to legitimize those lifestyles as well.



I wholly agree. These individuals and communities have the right to the best possible care and full acceptance by society at large. All I'm saying is that calling them all the same thing does not help one little bit.


.

Oh and is gender a choice... no, but how we deal with having a gender/body conflict is. Suicide, transition, cross dressing, excessive stereotypical behavior are all choices people make due to gender dysphoria, but they are choices. Some just make a lot more sense than others.

Sean

100% agree with that-- gender is innate but how the individual deals with that, in cases where birth sex and gender are conflicted is a choice, even if it is a Hobson's choice. Remember though, that many CD men have no conflict with their gender at all; they just like wearing women's clothes, and many TV men inhabit a fascinating world where they present as one gender part of the time and another part of the time. I think there is some question as to whether these individuals need treatment at all; we long ago, at least in enlightened societies and outside the lunatic behaviourist fringe, gave up the notion that gay people needed treatment and moved to an understanding that what they required was just acceptance; for many CD and TV people, that is also all they really require.

Transsexual women, however, almost always do need some form of treatment, and, I say again, lumping them together with others in diagnostic/treatment terms is actually harmful and delays or may even deny that treatment.

[Justawannabe]

I don't believe I misread the ladies posts. The point I was trying to make was not that they were not transsexuals at that moment, but that there was no way to tell that. Even they themselves did not know whether they were transsexual, CD, gay, bi, etc.

We have no objective test for a transsexual condition at this time. A large part of the diagnosis depends on the slant of the therapist and self identification of the person in question. Given that, if the goal is to protect the access of transsexual women to medical and legal equality, we have to include the other likely stages a person might go through in finding their transsexual identity.

It's not that transsexuals are the same as the others in the transgender soup, or need the same treatment, it's that we have little way of determining with any accuracy who belongs in which separate category until they tell us. And, as you correctly point out, even they do not necessarily know at the time treatment is sought.

Practically, we also have to avoid rationing medical care to TS only. While they may indeed be in more need on average, setting up a set of tests only adds anxiety to those seeking help with any of these issues. It becomes imperative to do your research and 'study for the test' rather than give honest answers. This can lead people to deluding themselves as well as the testers, and no one actually gets better care as the soup gets even harder to tell apart.

Gate keeping without an objective test is dangerous.

[yodajazz]

I would like to see something on how the law process really unfolded. I doubt whether the failure of the bill was really based upon any form of logic. I say it was probably more of fear and judgment like, “lets gain religious support by catering to their prejudices”.

As the press coverage went, what happened was one of the republican state legislators started making comments to the press & public about how if gender identity discrimination is outlawed, it would allow transvestites to use female public restrooms where little girls could be present.

The argument was flawed, for a number of reasons, once a few of the republican legislators went around publicly clinging to the restroom issue, the bill's support simply evaporated right then and there.

I suppose its possible they were just using the TVs in bathrooms argument for political capital -hoping it would increase religious right support or something to that effect, but there's no way of knowing just what went on in these politicians' heads besides what they've publicly stated.

Still, even if their underlying objective was religious right support, the fact that the "fetishist guys in drag masturbating in bathrooms in front of little girls" was their ONLY argument in arguing against the bill, shows that the argument was pretty convincing. The democrat support also evaporated for the bill after those arguments were being made to the press, I kind of doubt their intentions were to gain support from the religious right...

The republicans never even got to their other (flawed) arguments in their anti-LGBT play book. I was actually quite surprised when I didn't start hearing those other arguments (i.e. the idea that "trans people just want special rights over everyone else").



People here are saying that transvestites are purely sexual based.

Well, once the DSM5 comes out- by the medical texts they will be defined that way. Of course medical texts can easily be incorrect.

That stated, just because people are saying that TVs are purely sexual based, doesn't mean it isn't.

Even if it's not purely fetish based, there's still a sexual component there that simply can't be dismissed, and that component has no equivalent among TS people. The two groups (TV and TS) are basically being grouped together because A- the people who would want to harm both groups, and B- the fact that all trans people "look the same" to the general public (this goes back to not being able to visually tell the difference between TS and TV people). And since TV is so much more common then TS, people who don't know what they're talking about keep thinking TV is reflective of TS people when that's simply not true.


But I see too often trans people referring to people like tv’s and gays as sexual deviants and making the argument that they are unlike those ‘disgusting’ people.

I haven't noticed that being said in terms of gays. I've seen trans people strongly object to being grouped with gays, but I haven't noticed that to be under the argument of "gays being sexually deviant."

Why object to being grouped with gays? Well, there is no logic behind grouping L-G-B-TS-TV people together as one group to start with. The only "common ground" is the people who would want to harm all those different groups.

If anything has played a role in trans people wanting to separate from the L-G-B community, it's the transphobia that's rampant in certain parts of the LGB community. There is a very common mutual desire for the groups to split, not just "trans people wanting to ditch gays"- hence why so many gay groups have never adopted the T in LGBT to begin with, or the groups that have in name... strictly for show (i.e. HRC).

As to referring to TV's as "sexual deviants," that's because in the eyes of the general public, they are. It doesn't matter what the reality is- the truth is that politicians, religious groups, and normal everyday people simply have this irrational fear response to anything sexual in nature.... that fear response gets exponentially more intense if it ever involves being in public or around children. As a result the general public had, has, and will continue to have problems with TVs from the start no matter how baseless that rash response maybe in reality. Even if being TV isn't a purely sexual thing, even if that's only half the story- that "40 year old ex nhl player putting on hose to jerk off" stereotype is still going to be a problem to the sheep, and there will be no way to kill that stereotype because of the way its constantly reinforced from the mass media, and some tvs themselves.

From that point, "throwing tv people under the bus for acceptance" is justifiable if that's the only way the general public will ever come on board with reform (legally and medically). Generally speaking tv people are perfectly capable of staying in the closet, and do not need to worry about discrimination problems, identification papers, birth certificates, name changes, marriage law, medical procedures, or any of those other problems. Beyond that, any ts-inclusive protections that are established, would also apply to tv people. If TS-TV separation is what gets those bills threw the floors of legislative bodies, then that's better for everyone.

To give an example, if a bill was signed into law making it illegal to discriminate based on "gender identity or gender expression" (those two magic phrases), even if the goal was only to protect ts people, it would be protecting both groups by definition. It would be just as illegal to fire someone for being TS, as it would be to fire someone for being a tv.

This is not like the gays ditching trans people, because gay-only protections can NEVER be adapted to protect trans people because they lack trans inclusive language (those two magic phrases).

The bathroom issue was an easily solved problem which has been dealt with in other countries. That is to provide special facilities or times for the special persons. For example, everyone is not able to use public restrooms when they are being cleaned. So all one has to do is to put a “not in use” type sign for the designated persons. Or just reserve special facilities for them, if possible.


...As to referring to TV's as "sexual deviants," that's because in the eyes of the general public, they are. It doesn't matter what the reality is- the truth is that politicians, religious groups, and normal everyday people simply have this irrational fear response to anything sexual in nature.... that fear response gets exponentially more intense if it ever involves being in public or around children. As a result the general public had, has, and will continue to have problems with TVs from the start no matter how baseless that rash response maybe in reality. Even if being TV isn't a purely sexual thing, even if that's only half the story- that "40 year old ex nhl player putting on hose to jerk off" stereotype is still going to be a problem to the sheep, and there will be no way to kill that stereotype because of the way its constantly reinforced from the mass media, and some tvs themselves.

From that point, "throwing tv people under the bus for acceptance" is justifiable if that's the only way the general public will ever come on board with reform (legally and medically). Generally speaking tv people are perfectly capable of staying in the closet, and do not need to worry about discrimination problems, identification papers, birth certificates, name changes, marriage law, medical procedures, or any of those other problems. Beyond that, any ts-inclusive protections that are established, would also apply to tv people. If TS-TV separation is what gets those bills threw the floors of legislative bodies, then that's better for everyone.
...
.


Masturbating fetish hockey players!? This brings up two major issues, at least. One is that sexual acts like masturbation are private acts which are illegal in public. Non CD hockey players also have sexual desires. It is unfair to discriminate against anyone based on acts which they are allow to do in privacy. And also, laws already cover everyone who would do the acts in public. Large amounts of people judge other people, by their private sexual behavior, which has almost nothing to do with public rights. This is true for the entire LGBT community. So there is a political advantage to defend everyone’s rights. And it is the moral thing to do, also.

Secondly there is a larger issue of looking at groups of people (in this case CD) based upon someone’s worst image. Those ‘worst images’ are usually one dimensional, and are not the views that group holds of themselves. So isolated White people, mostly see Blacks on the news, who are committing crimes. But wise people know that all groups of people have some who commit criminal acts. The answer is that all groups of people should be able to define themselves by their own positive image and spokespersons.

The image of a CD should be that of a bank president, who dresses to escape the pressures of male expectations. He makes occasional outings with other CD’s who dress classy and meet at nice restaurants. I have seen pics of such outings and those types of people. And think about it; that mythical person may be holding down a productive, supporting a family other social causes, and other organizations. And yet there may a trans woman, who works as a sex provider, thinking that she is better than that person. Yes, I just used an image of a person based upon their sexual acts. The point is, that people on this forum, see trans women who are sex workers, in a larger context beyond that, and support their rights as human beings in the greater society. If trans people want this view of themselves, it helps to practice it on other groups of people, (in this case tv’s/CD’s). Then maybe someday people will look kinder on the most discriminated of all classes of people, that of “tranny chasers”. (lol!)

So I say that it is the wrong approach to be willing to “throw someone else under the bus”, for the gains of your own group. It is ultimately, justification for someone to do the same to you. And thinking that you (and your group), are better than others, in general way, leads to the wrong path. These are parts of larger moral issues which is something for everyone to learn, not just in this community. But this community needs to be taught these important lessons, more so than others, who have more legal rights.

[yodajazz]

I have never said, and never implied that trans women were men with a mental disorder. Never in over 1500 posts. I simply said I believe that they are part of the same spectrum of behavior,



Which behaviour would that be? Men bending their gender? What is the difference between that and the "points on a scale" theory? And if they are all "part of the same spectrum of behaviour," at what point (and by what right) do you determine that the person is a woman, and not a man with a gender shift?

It's pure semantics. By stating that transsexual women are on the same spectrum of behaviour as CD/TV men, you are denying that transsexual women are women at all. Transsexual women are not men who change their dress and appearance to change their gender presentation; they are women who bring their gender presentation into line with their innate gender, unless by "spectrum of behaviour" you mean "appearing to be a woman." However since this ALSO applies to natal women, the statement is frankly meaningless...



There has to be some gatekeeping criteria, as long as everyone is not permitted the same rights. This is universal, so it applies to transexuals also. An easy example is, that not everyone who goes to the hospital emergency room is admitted to the hospital.

Your logic is faulty. I have never said implied that transexual women were not women. Because a woman was born as something else, does not mean that she cannot develop into a woman. Look a people with intersex conditions as an example. Two people with the same condition could ultimately be classifed as either gender.

You are twisting my argument to try and match it with other peoples, who I don't even agree with. I do think that some were trying to understand the phenomena, but came up woefully short.

[MacShreach]

I have never said, and never implied that trans women were men with a mental disorder. Never in over 1500 posts. I simply said I believe that they are part of the same spectrum of behavior,



Which behaviour would that be? Men bending their gender? What is the difference between that and the "points on a scale" theory? And if they are all "part of the same spectrum of behaviour," at what point (and by what right) do you determine that the person is a woman, and not a man with a gender shift?

It's pure semantics. By stating that transsexual women are on the same spectrum of behaviour as CD/TV men, you are denying that transsexual women are women at all. Transsexual women are not men who change their dress and appearance to change their gender presentation; they are women who bring their gender presentation into line with their innate gender, unless by "spectrum of behaviour" you mean "appearing to be a woman." However since this ALSO applies to natal women, the statement is frankly meaningless...



There has to be some gatekeeping criteria, as long as everyone is not permitted the same rights. This is universal, so it applies to transexuals also. An easy example is, that not everyone who goes to the hospital emergency room is admitted to the hospital.

Your logic is faulty. I have never said implied that transexual women were not women. Because a woman was born as something else, does not mean that she cannot develop into a woman. Look a people with intersex conditions as an example. Two people with the same condition could ultimately be classifed as either gender.

You are twisting my argument to try and match it with other peoples, who I don't even agree with. I do think that some were trying to understand the phenomena, but came up woefully short.

I refer you to my previous posts on this matter in this thread and elsewhere. I think you will find I have covered all this at least once, should you actually bother to read them.

[SarahG]

The bathroom issue was an easily solved problem which has been dealt with in other countries. That is to provide special facilities or times for the special persons. For example, everyone is not able to use public restrooms when they are being cleaned. So all one has to do is to put a “not in use” type sign for the designated persons. Or just reserve special facilities for them, if possible.

That's not acceptance, that's discrimination (segregation).

A "bathroom solution" is an (incorrect) answer to a problem that doesn't even exist in the first place. The only reason why people care about bathrooms in the US in terms of trans people, is because of all the bad trans stereotypes that crease the impression that trans people are sexually deviant. It's got nothing to do with what genitalia someone has, which is why when the social conservatives harp on the bathroom issue- they do so by bringing up stereotypically "perverted" TV's.

There's no need or reason to segregate bathrooms at all based on sex status. The only reason why the practice remains is because the practice is what everyone is used to in public places. When people host large parties at their house, everything functions fine without sex-segregated bathrooms. Several of my dr offices don't have separate bathrooms. To say that (and I am not saying you are saying this) that unisex bathrooms would be the "downfall of society" simply isn't supported by the way things already are.

The argument of just making more bathrooms isn't practical, nor logical, nor fair for the people who would have to pay for them. Trans people make up an extremely small portion of the population, so getting business owners, government buildings, and parks to build a 3rd bathroom for tgirls isn't going to be an easy sell when they know it will virtually never be used, to say nothing of building a 4th bathroom for tguys.

There's always the argument that "well, you could always make the tgirls and tguys share one bathroom" but if that's true, then what's the purpose of having separated bathrooms in the first place!?


Masturbating fetish hockey players!? This brings up two major issues, at least. One is that sexual acts like masturbation are private acts which are illegal in public. Non CD hockey players also have sexual desires.

Sorry if I confused you, my "40 year old ex-nhl player putting on hose to jerk off" is my typical hypothetical scenario when talking about TV's. You're over analyzing it, I just use it for dramatic effect (and to test to see if anyone is paying attention).

Another one of those phrases I throw around on HA (I am surprised this is the first time you've noticed them) is "cockbandits who'd go to the Scottish games to hit on all the guys in kilts thinking they're tgirls wearing school girl outfits." I usually use this one to propose hypothetical scenarios in which certain chasers only care about the cock to the point where they'd hit on anything with a cock. Although now that I think of it, it's been a while since I've used this one. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif


It is unfair to discriminate against anyone based on acts which they are allow to do in privacy.

I agree but good luck convincing the social conservatives on that one.


And also, laws already cover everyone who would do the acts in public.

Which goes to show why the restroom fears are so unfounded, the conservatives make it look like it will be turning our bathrooms into big orgies of sin, and the people seem to believe them- despite the whole very notion being absurd.


So there is a political advantage to defend everyone’s rights. And it is the moral thing to do, also.


I quite agree, but that doesn't require painting TV and TS people as "one in the same."


The image of a CD should be that of a bank president, who dresses to escape the pressures of male expectations. He makes occasional outings with other CD’s who dress classy and meet at nice restaurants. I have seen pics of such outings and those types of people.

How did you know that is what was going on? You can't tell a TV from a TS by appearances.




So I say that it is the wrong approach to be willing to “throw someone else under the bus”, for the gains of your own group.

As I said earlier, this isn't like all the times where HRC dropped trans inclusion thinking it would advance their cause. Gay protections cannot protect trans people without being inclusive. That's just legal reality.

But gender protections aimed at protecting TS people -WILL- apply to other groups including TVs, CDs, AGs, butch dykes, flamers- etc. It's not "throwing one group under the bus for the advancement of another", its selective lobbying to push the issue through politically for the good of everyone.

People just don't understand, that if it's lobbied as a reform for TVs, AGs, and TS people as one big TG group- it simply isn't politically feasible to get those reforms, even in liberal New England.

[SarahG]

There has to be some gatekeeping criteria, as long as everyone is not permitted the same rights. This is universal, so it applies to transexuals also. An easy example is, that not everyone who goes to the hospital emergency room is admitted to the hospital.


Really!!? Around here the illegals use the ER as free health clinics and go for everything from ingrown toe nails to colds to getting contraceptive.

I've never heard of someone being ejected from an ER. They will give priority to people most in need of treatment, so if you're there for a papercut it could take 30 hours to see a doctor- but turning someone away without treatment of some kind!?

The only time I have heard of someone being kicked out of an ER was the cases in Quebec a few years ago that (literally) threw some postops out on the sidewalk because the hospital "didn't want to treat those perverts." But even then, they were partially treated before being thrown on the streets.


Your logic is faulty. I have never said implied that transexual women were not women. Because a woman was born as something else, does not mean that she cannot develop into a woman. Look a people with intersex conditions as an example. Two people with the same condition could ultimately be classifed as either gender.

I have to take issue to this. You're saying (perhaps unintentionally) that trans people develop into a woman.

I don't agree, that's like the people who say that trans people aren't women until they get srs (and then use that to prevent from getting accurate identification papers, forcing people to face job, housing, and other types of discrimination).

Transitioning is a process of changing the way the body looks. If someone is a woman, it's because of their existing gender identity, not because how however their body looks at the moment.

[yodajazz]

[quote=MacShreach][quote=yodajazz]

I have never said, and never implied that trans women were men with a mental disorder. Never in over 1500 posts. I simply said I believe that they are part of the same spectrum of behavior,




I refer you to my previous posts on this matter in this thread and elsewhere. I think you will find I have covered all this at least once, should you actually bother to read them.

I am only trying to clairfy what I have said, since you have said more than once that I think that all female transexuals are really men. I never said it or even intended to imply that. So you have twisted my words more than once to mean something other than what I said. I have never advocated the theories of Blanchard and Bailey. Believe what you want to believe, but don't tell people that I said something which is not true.

Why should I read long posts of someone who doesn't give me basic respect?

[yodajazz]

There has to be some gatekeeping criteria, as long as everyone is not permitted the same rights. This is universal, so it applies to transexuals also. An easy example is, that not everyone who goes to the hospital emergency room is admitted to the hospital.


Really!!? Around here the illegals use the ER as free health clinics and go for everything from ingrown toe nails to colds to getting contraceptive.

I've never heard of someone being ejected from an ER. They will give priority to people most in need of treatment, so if you're there for a papercut it could take 30 hours to see a doctor- but turning someone away without treatment of some kind!?

The only time I have heard of someone being kicked out of an ER was the cases in Quebec a few years ago that (literally) threw some postops out on the sidewalk because the hospital "didn't want to treat those perverts." But even then, they were partially treated before being thrown on the streets.


Your logic is faulty. I have never said implied that transexual women were not women. Because a woman was born as something else, does not mean that she cannot develop into a woman. Look a people with intersex conditions as an example. Two people with the same condition could ultimately be classifed as either gender.

I have to take issue to this. You're saying (perhaps unintentionally) that trans people develop into a woman.

I don't agree, that's like the people who say that trans people aren't women until they get srs (and then use that to prevent from getting accurate identification papers, forcing people to face job, housing, and other types of discrimination).

Transitioning is a process of changing the way the body looks. If someone is a woman, it's because of their existing gender identity, not because how however their body looks at the moment.

You misunderstood what I was saying about hospital admissions. My meaning of that term, is when someone is accepted for in patient care and given a bed. Emergency rooms are suposed to provide treatment for everyone, but hospital admission has to meet some gatekeeping criteria.

There maybe millions of different defintions of what a woman and man are. But there is a general concensus that they do develop from children.

[yodajazz]

The bathroom issue was an easily solved problem which has been dealt with in other countries. That is to provide special facilities or times for the special persons. For example, everyone is not able to use public restrooms when they are being cleaned. So all one has to do is to put a “not in use” type sign for the designated persons. Or just reserve special facilities for them, if possible.

That's not acceptance, that's discrimination (segregation).

A "bathroom solution" is an (incorrect) answer to a problem that doesn't even exist in the first place. The only reason why people care about bathrooms in the US in terms of trans people, is because of all the bad trans stereotypes that crease the impression that trans people are sexually deviant. It's got nothing to do with what genitalia someone has, which is why when the social conservatives harp on the bathroom issue- they do so by bringing up stereotypically "perverted" TV's.

There's no need or reason to segregate bathrooms at all based on sex status. The only reason why the practice remains is because the practice is what everyone is used to in public places. When people host large parties at their house, everything functions fine without sex-segregated bathrooms. Several of my dr offices don't have separate bathrooms. To say that (and I am not saying you are saying this) that unisex bathrooms would be the "downfall of society" simply isn't supported by the way things already are.

The argument of just making more bathrooms isn't practical, nor logical, nor fair for the people who would have to pay for them. Trans people make up an extremely small portion of the population, so getting business owners, government buildings, and parks to build a 3rd bathroom for tgirls isn't going to be an easy sell when they know it will virtually never be used, to say nothing of building a 4th bathroom for tguys.

There's always the argument that "well, you could always make the tgirls and tguys share one bathroom" but if that's true, then what's the purpose of having separated bathrooms in the first place!? ...
.

Since you said the bathroom argument by itself defeated the transgender rights bill, it seems that problem soliving the issue was a direct way to confront it. Extra bathrooms don't have to be built. In the case where there are multiple toliets in one room, then one particular bathroom cold be chosen or simply make it off limits for others, in case someone does object by putting up a sign that the bathroom is not available for use while the person is using. I agree that the bathroom issue is not that valid, but if amounts of people object. It may help to find a compromise solution to ease their fears in order to rights in areas such as employment and housing. I think a practical approach addresses the issue, rather than saying, "were not like crossdressers".


[
So there is a political advantage to defend everyone’s rights. And it is the moral thing to do, also.


I quite agree, but that doesn't require painting TV and TS people as "one in the same."
.

There has been some misunderstanding in this thread. I don't believe that TV and TS people are "one in the same". I do believe that they have things in common, even if they are different. But that is part of my general philosophy that people gain by seeing what they have in common rather than pointing out others differences. I think that the TS movement for rights would advance faster if people said we are denied rights just like (chose name) ethnic group, rather than saying we deserve rights because we are not like those TV's. I do believe that it is good for the public to understand what a transexual is. But accepting negative stereotypes of another group does not advance the cause.

[yodajazz]

The image of a CD should be that of a bank president, who dresses to escape the pressures of male expectations. He makes occasional outings with other CD’s who dress classy and meet at nice restaurants. I have seen pics of such outings and those types of people.

How did you know that is what was going on? You can't tell a TV from a TS by appearances.
....

Exactly! You made the logic, of why “gender expression” should be protected as well gender identity. It’s a slippery slope, if you can’t tell the categories of two people apart by looking at them, yet you say one deserved rights while the other doesn’t. I say the protections need not be exactly the same for both categories. There may be some things that would apply to one but not the other.

History of crossdressing organiztions

Since perhaps the early seventies, crossdressers had organiztions to support themselves in expression, to promote more positive images. These were mostly local groups, but there was also a national umbrella organization to which local groups could join. The group main focus was to support heterosexual crossdressers, because they wanted to have acceptance from their S.O.’s. (http://www.alphatriess.org/3sbroc.htm) They themselves were discriminatory, since they did not want members who may be attracted to men. My take on this, is that as crossdressers began to feel safer to go into community venues, (especially ‘gay bars’), they began to accept a more diverse population in the gender community. Not only have more transgenders come out, a few from the crossdresser community identified themselves as transgender.

Now at least a couple of groups give event which welcome all members of the “gender community”. They specific list all the categories which in both crossdressers and transgenders.

http://www.be-all.org/ The Be-All Convention
http://www.sccatl.org/ The Southern Comfort Convention.

Every group should be able to promote a positive image of its members. And we have a duty to accept their image, as we want people to do the same for our own community.

Look at the reality of the gender inclusive picture. Is human behavior really that simple so that certain people in the photograph are there for purely sexual (fetish) reasons, and the transexuals have no sexual feelings at all? Which people in the photo deserve to be treated fairly? Or shouldn't the human race be ecolving into treating all people fairly.

[MacShreach]

you have said more than once that I think that all female transexuals are really men. I never said it or even intended to imply that. So you have twisted my words more than once to mean something other than what I said.

Well, you did say this:






I disagree that tv/cd’s are a whole different phenomena than transexuals.


I didn't "twist" anything; I responded to what you said. But perhaps you are progressing towards a more reasonable point of view, and if so, I applaud that.

I see you have now accepted that gender is not a choice:




Gender is not a choice.



Which is also a good thing.

I have never suggested that CD/TV people were less valuable, less worthy of rights or proper care and respect than transsexual women or men. My point has been and remains, that in lumping the two together, very little benefit is gained by CD/TV people, and a great deal of damage is done to transsexual men and women. This is not the fault of CD/TV people, I hasten to make clear, nor am I suggesting that transsexual men and women's rights should be promoted over the rights of others or to the detriment of the rights of others; nevertheless, the fact is, as we now seem to agree, CD/TV men and transsexual women are NOT the same thing, and it is therefore appropriate to recognise the individuality and specific concerns of each group.

We must remember that in many ways, the division of the so-called transgender group into its constituent parts makes life much easier anyway; we know that for transsexuals, hormone treatment and surgery is an extremely effective therapy, with a better than 80% success rate (a figure which is agreed upon by the detractors as well, they just say "up to 20% have problems"--it's called spinning the facts;) an 80% or better rate of complete success in a condition that can be and often is life-threatening is regarded anywhere as a very good result.

At the same time, I certainly question to what extent CD/TV men need treatment at all--I would argue that a significant number are actually perfectly well-balanced, normal people with a harmless liking for women's clothes, a desire to explore gender anomalies and so on, up to and including those for whom these desires amount to an irresistible urge; most CD/TV men's problems are not rooted in their own behaviour but in how society responds to it. Their psychological problems appear to derive more from an urge to resist their desires, rather than in the fulfilment of them; and while we may argue that in other cases, the fulfilment of a fantasy might not be a good idea, I absolutely fail to understand how a man who dresses up as a woman, for whatever reason, be that personal satisfaction or to attract the admiration of others or just to feel better, is a problem for anyone. Societies that have this amount of judgementalism in them need to take a look at themselves, not CD/TV men.

Therefore many do not actually need treatment at all--quite possibly the best therapy they can get is shopping and mutual appreciation, and actually, as a group, they seem to be pretty good at organising that sort of support for themselves. Unfortunately, here again, behaviourists appear to have decided that such individuals would be better off and happier if they were conditioned out of their behaviour; and again we see the damage that these quacks can do. It is one thing to try to alter the behaviour of a potentially violent criminal; but using quackery to discourage people from indulging in perfectly harmless activities which in themselves succeed in keeping the individual concerned sane and well-balanced, is a complete nonsense, even if the society around them is uncomfortable with their behaviour because it does not fit accepted standards of gender normality.

So if we recognise that CD/TV men and transsexual women are not the same thing, not some sort of "points on a scale" or pecking-order of transsexualism, but just completely separate phenomena, we damage neither and may save considerable harm, not to mention expense, for both.